From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E96138453 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:15:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E4900E086F; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:14:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A3B4E080E for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:14:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.130] (CPE002401f30b73-CM78cd8ec1b205.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.138.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD385340768 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:14:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <55EFDDAD.9030502@gentoo.org> <1441811422.25086.64.camel@gentoo.org> <55F052F7.2060200@gentoo.org> <55F054D7.90901@gentoo.org> From: Ian Stakenvicius Message-ID: <55F05AE7.30002@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:14:31 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55F054D7.90901@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: cb3dad59-aa26-4641-8369-b6cc39a49e20 X-Archives-Hash: ad5854bf4640e81167d1a99a7486198c -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 09/09/15 11:48 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/09/2015 05:40 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> [ Snip list ] >> > > There was a tracker on bugzilla about it at some point, but > people didn't care enough, so I stopped filing bugs. Neither the > gnome team nor QA had a strong enough opinion to enforce > consistency here over the whole tree. > Right... So, back to the issue at hand. If a package -always- depends on a gtk (usually gtk2), but can optionally be configured to depend on gtk3 instead (and it should be optional because support isn't clearly stable yet), what's the solution here? IUSE="gtk" isn't appropriate because that's meant for enabling optional gtk support, not choosing -which- gtk to support when there always needs to be one. IUSE="gtk3" to me fits well in this case but it's also reportedly forbidden... IUSE="experimental-gtk3-support" seems less than optimal but if we (chromium, mozilla teams) have to go that route I guess we will.. The wiki seems to say that we as rdep maintainers should choose one and stick with it, but as a mozilla package maintainer, I don't want to force the entire user base to using one or the other (at least not yet), given firefox -just- got (that is, will get in two version bumps) gtk3 support that's considered stable enough for use outside of development. I don't suppose we as a community can revisit the decision to ban IUSE="gtk3" as a flag to toggle between gtk2 and gtk3 support, when one or the other is -required- by a package? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlXwWuYACgkQAJxUfCtlWe25WwD/b8ozgV4zHLyNrIzYI+Cu79+l gBORP+1q6EMUWyuyVewBAIE3nNFow+XeN67pH4pT6gqQqBJ27VH+bAt9nTprs0pi =HWeR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----