From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-71935-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2866E138454
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:44:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6251821C009;
Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:44:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180])
(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 4043EE08AC
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:44:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iofh134 with SMTP id h134so58910175iof.0
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=N6hfVPaXT2v5+wenSLT9k+4QDhGjuAErgbffgMsc/uA=;
b=YvxWoXMHEKH5p6Bfe9tip1UGbdz/1bEt4MjarGM1C4ZsPctXy3MtVwTp3KDGdzpyAk
YBdYTNY6wfUodHZKglY7FOHkxPaxRLTpbjEKaTxBEXOz9P/VpSTbRknVB5857ObCiToz
5CreJgAE0PbTqdGMra32OSuAl2NZRfOVC1oVBegIVUJvR/Q09EGtSbi4gWJ1wWhLJQYB
fkArFG+DotvNJeyfkcEVRaX5+sySIeJrae2NXnTrguV/DaL2sG1jEjWHSYBZxyMuTAmQ
PzjTO+IXMvYuU7EXKoSu8cQxO8SyfdFW+B7cCdbL6QeGbLf0mq8W/3WbHq4GN5l3HG+9
FnkQ==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.28.144 with SMTP id c138mr61298128ioc.93.1441889068395;
Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.79.103.70 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55F17885.2050103@gentoo.org>
References: <55EFDDAD.9030502@gentoo.org>
<55EFDEC7.1070403@gentoo.org>
<55F00BFD.7050804@gentoo.org>
<55F12159.3020506@gentoo.org>
<55F1439E.1070002@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_kMxJ4mKE88-R9BwAG0PMrrB6j_HR87f9uWFvNH-hCWvw@mail.gmail.com>
<55F16059.9090502@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_nE8E_qKcB3va=iefaMKWTT1HjCgvppOH7C69tw5YS5vw@mail.gmail.com>
<55F173F3.7040806@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_=_d89aMDDBvR9mBqmFe528DtHhbCq8C11cQyWS3i2+PQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55F17885.2050103@gentoo.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:44:28 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HYxAtx63BM4XZtH6-99b8h9UP34
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_njZ-o7B_W-87KFh_LYZ-J4zKmQLw5SLEi-rzVQpy6YQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 3138aad2-e494-4ebb-8b39-8d44f2735bba
X-Archives-Hash: e770b5a2fc58a0259dd05a7c9c7e651b
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> So this makes no sense, since it's already an unsupported corner case.
Just what use of Gentoo do you not consider an unsupported corner
case, which isn't already better supported by some other distro?
The whole point of using Gentoo is having "support" for all those
"unsupported corner cases." If you just want everything to support
doing things in the one way which is most supportable, you're
basically doing a really bad job at re-inventing Debian.
I use quotes around support since all support on Gentoo is
best-effort, and that is all I'm getting at here. If a package
maintainer can support multiple configurations and are willing to do
so, they should be encouraged to do so.
>
>> I'm not suggesting that package maintainers should be forced to
>> support both whenever possible. I just don't think they should be
>> discouraged from doing so.
>>
>
> Yes, they should be discouraged. It's a QA matter.
>
Well, I'm glad we've all aired our opinions on the matter. :)
I just fail to see the QA issue here, unless it again boils down to
that it is easier to do QA when you have one configuration (like
Debian) and not many (like Gentoo).
The other issue that keeps coming up is that we don't have good
standards for USE flag naming in these situations, and the solution to
that is to come up with a good uniform practice.
--
Rich