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 2034B138454 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 67C1121C01E; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:05:45 +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 85C8821C00F for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:05:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2a02:908:b30:55a0:96de:80ff:fe6b:ddcc] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:908:b30:55a0:96de:80ff:fe6b:ddcc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F96D340800 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:05:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <55EFDEC7.1070403@gentoo.org> <20150910124641.GB6567@greenbeast> <20150910150716.5a843cc7.mgorny@gentoo.org> <2405010.0JSpNPP3XQ@note> <55F1B687.4030604@gentoo.org> From: hasufell X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1010 Message-ID: <55F1C671.1030002@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:05:37 +0200 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: cd07770c-ab74-4219-bf47-07be835790d7 X-Archives-Hash: ffa242b85499c3e2aaee7a505fbbd0ff On 09/10/2015 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Given the fact that we are short on manpower and that most part of the >> linux ecosystem is moving towards gtk3... there has been no good >> argument to support a toolkit version - that is (about to be) deprecated >> - for exotic corner use cases that people tried to come up with in the >> heat of the argument. >> > > So, my issue is really with the proposition that we need a "good > argument" to support a toolkit version in the first place. > Because: a) the gnome maintainers already said they are not interested in supporting it indefinitely (they are the maintainers of gtk+ as well) c) it introduces maintenance and configuration complexity where it is absolutely unnecessary (because no one could come up with a real use case) und breaks consistency We _should_ need good arguments before we break consistency and introduce another layer of configuration complexity, REQUIRED_USE flags and other nastiness like package.stable.use.mask and whatnot (mgorny already outlined a few other problems too).