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 8B2F013828B for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 15:35:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93A52141E9; Fri, 27 May 2016 15:35:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AC8921C012 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 15:35:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.130] (CPE002401f30b73-CM7cb21bc3014a.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 137D8340CD6 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 15:34:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flag situation To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1464358866.13834.59.camel@gentoo.org> From: Ian Stakenvicius Message-ID: <9a44aed5-b359-90b0-ef7a-afeb133111a5@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:34:51 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 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: <1464358866.13834.59.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="w5GAnpobW7fdgLsL1CWhDEkA2iBHfutbO" X-Archives-Salt: 9ac0db0a-c968-4373-963c-b996d35b20a1 X-Archives-Hash: 1b69f5936840661dcae8f76469d4c48f This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --w5GAnpobW7fdgLsL1CWhDEkA2iBHfutbO Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nkxdS86OOIHvaMlOFwqaxceLg4HLLTxsu" From: Ian Stakenvicius To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <9a44aed5-b359-90b0-ef7a-afeb133111a5@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] gtk/gtk2/gtk3 USE flag situation References: <1464358866.13834.59.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1464358866.13834.59.camel@gentoo.org> --nkxdS86OOIHvaMlOFwqaxceLg4HLLTxsu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 27/05/16 10:21 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > [ Snip! ] Agree on all other portions above; its the Applications part below that is most contentious though and is also what I care most about: > * Applications may only use a gtk2 based stack or gtk3 based stack in a= > given version/revision. gtk3 is strongly preferred when it is deemed to= > not have any regressions compared to gtk2 build, but the choice is > ultimately with the maintainer. Once the application converts to using > gtk3 in our distribution, it should try hard to stay that way in > upcoming versions as well. >=20 > * Some exceptions to the above may exist under heavy consideration, > especially in cases where the toolkit usage is complex and may have > some issues for some, but in general gtk3 support is deemed good by > upstream. Most notable here would be browsers like firefox and > chromium, which are using gtk dependency more for emulating the theme > it uses, rather than using it as its real toolkit. If such exceptions > are allowed, the USE flag naming here must be consistent amongst the > exceptions. My proposal would be USE=3Dforce-gtk2 then, as I have no > better ideas without stomping on the USE=3Dgtk{2,3} historical meaning.= Personally I don't see an issue at all with maintainers of applications allowing a package to be built against gtk2 instead of gtk3 even if gtk3 is deemed "good enough" by upstream. There are a number of end-users (myself included) that prefer the gtk2 experience over gtk3, and so to me I'd like to not limit what app maintainers want to do, but rather just limit the way they can do it. The 'force-gtk2' flag to me seems appropriate for this, especially since this type of choice should explicitly not be linked to a flag in any profiles (and i believe both gtk2 and gtk3 exist in some profile or another). > When arguing in favor of supporting gtk2 builds more for apps, please > do keep in mind that gtk2 really is pretty much dead. And no, MATE, > XFCE and others are NOT continuing its support; they are just slow in > fully converting to gtk3, but they are doing so and I expect both of > those to be fully done this year, around autumn. > If the issue is political or just a general gnome3 or gtk3 hate, then I= > would ask you to keep your political opinions or hate outside this > thread and go contemplate on more important life issues. > If the issue is lack of themes, then I would like you to help package > more gtk3 themes. gtk3.20 now has a stable CSS based theme API and > themes shouldn't be breaking anymore beyond this point, theoretically. > And gtk3 theme packages should pretty much just be CSS files and some > metadata. Though we have yet to get over that bumpy thing yet (a main > reason gtk3.20 isn't in main tree yet). As to the death of gtk2, well, despite firefox officially adopting gtk3 as the default in 46.0 there's still a lot of open bugs, some of which have been around for years, and the other mozilla products have barely tried to port their UIs over. I expect it will be 2018 at least before mozilla doesn't officially need gtk2 anymore. Dead upstream or not, I expect there will still be consumers of gtk2 for a few years yet. --nkxdS86OOIHvaMlOFwqaxceLg4HLLTxsu-- --w5GAnpobW7fdgLsL1CWhDEkA2iBHfutbO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAldIaR8ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe2hGgEArCikmso8rdUzPORSsBh7OArz C3HbHSssGtUqhDgXE8MBAL/6oi8bdo9oCBnbBkfsYpg+bllT14j73s8UdegoWE+p =MsdW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --w5GAnpobW7fdgLsL1CWhDEkA2iBHfutbO--