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 1A8E8138454 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:38:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B0F621C00E; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:38:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com [209.85.213.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 286D2E08C4 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:38:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igcrk20 with SMTP id rk20so19505601igc.1 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=D7lTP1WO0atVEgxjXV8/utJfjRx5Uw9bHPbaoCjPe/I=; b=AWrtiIca0uKGE3nLbUmcDmOmv9oNpHxr5q8cKs3Ndb/RqgGV0rzWT7SMIikqIul2Sy mAH5wojcyNgv3lJC93yWkdnDCTv5766PKvz7k5lzl9wouLB3PNXlrGKxjMicUkfrMqX9 dNdDf/ik4BaZ80l6tM1NCPqLm8wL9YeRPJUZXWavrSPlLcZ5lYCWXAJIkU0+bBtehqC3 6P9eWTrImNXdBzJlQYt5K+n90wFnYmid8KKaPIX3sDzTipZxJon+fbEfTvfwxZJB9hDT SlIfCWIcC8Ehl4QQiclbd1+67FPuvOV7A15susp2fHXpWPGEb5d31WZ/LBZZgo89+/vT 4o3w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOo9hQRQXxnzvqC+nW9kV4Z3O28llmJuWbAwW/qoB4ZYikTVBYaZcg6pAF6DKJzCB4R6QD 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 X-Received: by 10.50.27.102 with SMTP id s6mr7247681igg.23.1441899481796; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.79.39.144 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1000:3001:b154:fc55:2fb4:ea1c] In-Reply-To: <2405010.0JSpNPP3XQ@note> References: <55EFDEC7.1070403@gentoo.org> <20150910124641.GB6567@greenbeast> <20150910150716.5a843cc7.mgorny@gentoo.org> <2405010.0JSpNPP3XQ@note> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:38:01 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lx-0GsLXh_YRzzjbbMZapJDbs8U Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support From: Alec Warner To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10d0156a31a0051f666219 X-Archives-Salt: fc67d8c4-6980-490b-bf96-f1feab3913b7 X-Archives-Hash: c0c5d6264a3fe74686016e6844ada965 --047d7b10d0156a31a0051f666219 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: > I disagree witho you and hasufell. > > It *IS* users destiny if they get some stabiity issues because of their > decision to have gtk2-only or gtk3-only system. > > Yes, they can paste bugs about improper toolkit support. Is it bad? Rules > says > it should be reported upstream. And all the time Gentoo exists that worke= d > this way. > I agree, and yet, I wholly disagree. In the before times, the maintainers were often users. They maintained packages and added support for non-standard configurations precisely because they needed these configurations; they wanted them and they experimented with them. As the distro grew in size, in userbase, and in package count, you see this experimentation shunted off into other areas. 1) Local overlays. Often if users need to do a thing, they can simply use epatch_user or similar local over-rides to gain the functionality they desire. Gentoo itself has a fair amount of tooling to make this easy; its still way easier than doing it in other distros (the oft-mentioned Debian for example...) 2) Published overlays. We have overlays, and layman, and often discovering that someone else has added support for the customizations you want is fairly straightforward. Of course, it could be easier. Of course, we could put all ebuilds in one giant repository. Unfortunately with users comes some standard of reliability. In the early days I don't think anyone equated Gentoo with reliability. I think there is some higher standard now as many organizations have built atop Gentoo and expect some level of reliability (now whether this is a sane expectation is a separate discussion..but I digress.) > > The whole point of Gentoo is to give user freedom of the choice. Freedom = to > decide every aspect that is possible to decide about. Freedom to use Gent= oo > exactly as they want, but not as "you don't need feature X, because I'm > maintainer/QA and said that", like some DebUbuntu maintainers did with gi= t > or, > say, ejabberd, some years ago. Any movements to the easy side of "we will > not > support feature X, despite upstream still support it, because feature Y i= s > newer and shiny, and feature X can be less tested" is a big fat violation > of > Gentoo philosophy. > I absolutely refuse to allow this user-choice to be used as a stick to beat maintainers into doing whatever users want. The maintainers are the ones doing the work, and they get to choose. Many maintainers are sympathetic to user choice (as you note, it is a component of the distro philosophy) and many maintainers go out of their way to support user choice. But it is not a cudgel. > > And I totally agree with Rich: it is maintainer decision, if they ready t= o > support mutiple build variants or not. And if not =E2=80=94 it is absolut= elly > lawful > user's right to file a bug against a package, that it has support in > upstream, > but has not in the Gentoo. > And its absolutely OK for a maintainer to close the bug as WONTFIX after a lively discussion. > > WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE users what they should use and what they shou= ld > not. We are makers of kinda army swiss knife suite that give user > possibility > and instruments to make everything they want. And any tries to say "you > shall > use SystemD, but not sysV/openrc/upstart/whatever", or "you shall use gtk= 3 > only", or "you shall use Qt5 only", and so on =E2=80=94 is a CRIME agains= t Gentoo > philosophy. > > -- > Best regards, > mva > --047d7b10d0156a31a0051f666219 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov <mva@mva.name> wrote:
I disagree witho you = and hasufell.

It *IS* users destiny if they get some stabiity issues because of their
decision to have gtk2-only or gtk3-only system.

Yes, they can paste bugs about improper toolkit support. Is it bad? Rules s= ays
it should be reported upstream. And all the time Gentoo exists that worked<= br> this way.

I agree, and yet, I wholly di= sagree.

In the before times, the maintainers were = often users. They maintained packages and added support for non-standard co= nfigurations precisely because they needed these configurations; they wante= d them and they experimented with them.

As the dis= tro grew in size, in userbase, and in package count, you see this experimen= tation shunted off into other areas.

1) Local over= lays. Often if users need to do a thing, they can simply use epatch_user or= similar local over-rides to gain the functionality they desire. Gentoo its= elf has a fair amount of tooling to make this easy; its still way easier th= an doing it in other distros (the oft-mentioned Debian for example...)

2) Published overlays. We have overlays, and layman, a= nd often discovering that someone else has added support for the customizat= ions you want is fairly straightforward. Of course, it could be easier. Of = course, we could put all ebuilds in one giant repository. Unfortunately wit= h users comes some standard of reliability. In the early days I don't t= hink anyone equated Gentoo with reliability. I think there is some higher s= tandard now as many organizations have built atop Gentoo and expect some le= vel of reliability (now whether this is a sane expectation is a separate di= scussion..but I digress.)
=C2=A0

The whole point of Gentoo is to give user freedom of the choice. Freedom to=
decide every aspect that is possible to decide about. Freedom to use Gentoo=
exactly as they want, but not as "you don't need feature X, becaus= e I'm
maintainer/QA and said that", like some DebUbuntu maintainers did with= git or,
say, ejabberd, some years ago. Any movements to the easy side of "we w= ill not
support feature X, despite upstream still support it, because feature Y is<= br> newer and shiny, and feature X can be less tested" is a big fat violat= ion of
Gentoo philosophy.

I absolutely refuse = to allow this user-choice to be used as a stick to beat maintainers into do= ing whatever users want. The maintainers are the ones doing the work, and t= hey get to choose. Many maintainers are sympathetic to user choice (as you = note, it is a component of the distro philosophy) and many maintainers go o= ut of their way to support user choice. But it is not a cudgel.
= =C2=A0

And I totally agree with Rich: it is maintainer decision, if they ready to<= br> support mutiple build variants or not. And if not =E2=80=94 it is absolutel= ly lawful
user's right to file a bug against a package, that it has support in up= stream,
but has not in the Gentoo.

And its abso= lutely OK for a maintainer to close the bug as WONTFIX after a lively discu= ssion.
=C2=A0

WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE users what they should use and what they should=
not. We are makers of kinda army swiss knife suite that give user possibili= ty
and instruments to make everything they want. And any tries to say "yo= u shall
use SystemD, but not sysV/openrc/upstart/whatever", or "you shall= use gtk3
only", or "you shall use Qt5 only", and so on =E2=80=94 is a= CRIME against Gentoo
philosophy.

--
Best regards,
mva

--047d7b10d0156a31a0051f666219--