From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QeeuM-0006kh-1D for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:05:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F38DE21C05F; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE90221C05F for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywm21 with SMTP id 21so289092ywm.40 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:04:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2Z4ZqG0p2D8RkLtDOyOoJGX93NSSECMR46YrGjm8MY0=; b=eN2K0jpJQZD7pLu9JRonaaxJ1o/Cbs46YMDQZ1JTfupLf9qhboknPeayk+GdYPlncB OxErXYcSinqNFqI7tdchCONwCCBQFcHZ106/FjMNbMrtsOmgKtZNgFSl+lPj5gIACLLP eTJXN9S+JqWyj6s4IAQAnEJzgBBpPHMOs9GpE= Received: by 10.236.141.167 with SMTP id g27mr144256yhj.455.1310007854049; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-124-6.jan.bellsouth.net [65.0.124.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e24sm6148730yhk.79.2011.07.06.20.04.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E15222B.3030904@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:04:11 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110705 Gentoo/2.0.14-r1 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is Gentoo wiping out Gtk 2 support from packages that support it? References: <4E14BF3B.8020607@coolmail.se> <6151119.rLbBTuJhbN@nazgul> <20821970.rXlNJucr0u@localhost> <4E14EA77.8090503@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 9b7224b52d5e678e5c386dcd3c282368 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 07/07/2011 02:06 AM, Dale wrote: >> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >>> >>> and/or take the whole mess to -dev... >>> >>> I couldn't care less about gtk stuff - but forcing gtk3 just because - >>> and >>> that on a package where gtk3 is the worse choice... not a smart move. >>> >> >> This sounds like the move KDE made with KDE4. I have some gtk stuff on >> here but I'm not sure how much I actually use it. The new version may be >> good one day but if it is not ready yet, why not wait until it is? > > This is not about Gnome though. It's about Gtk. And portage never > removed older versions, unlike Qt. Try: > > eix -e gtk+ > > Hell, there's still version 1.2.10 lurking in there! What are the > chances there would be a Qt 1.x in portage? > > I didn't mention Gnome. I have some gnome stuff on here but don't use the desktop itself. I just made the comparison to KDE3 being dropped when it was well known that KDE4 still needed some time to get some kinks worked out. From what was posted here, I got the impression that gtk2 is being dropped when gtk3 is not . . . well quite ready yet. Just saying. :/ Dale :-) :-)