On 20/02/14 11:23, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 03:59 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: >> And this is an example of why everyone on the gnome team doesn't like >> the "gtk3" flag. Because well-meaning developers will be looking at >> their one corner of the portage tree, deciding that they are going to >> handle the choice of gtk version without slotting, and not consider the >> effect on the distro as a whole. >> >> You know what's going to happen now, after the QA team decision? >> >> First of all, lots of developers will start renaming "gtk" to "gtk3" in >> their ebuilds' IUSE. >> >> Which means "gtk gtk3" will soon have to be added to USE in >> targets/desktop/gnome/make.defaults (currently, the gnome profile >> globally only has USE="gtk" because the "gtk3" flag is evil). >> >> And users of non-gnome profiles who use gnome applications will of >> course manually add "gtk gtk3" to USE in their local make.conf. >> >> Unfortunately, at the same time, lots of other developers are going to >> start adding support for building against gtk2 XOR gtk3. Because of >> course "Gentoo is about choice", and the more choices, the merrier, and >> the gtk3 flag has been declared as supported by the QA team. And that >> means lots of REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( gtk gtk3 )". >> >> For the gnome team this results in a headache: maintaining a big list of >> "-gtk" / "-gtk3" entries in targets/desktop/gnome/package.use so that >> gnome users get a sensible choice and don't need to edit /etc/portage/* >> just to emerge widely used desktop tools. >> >> But for non-gnome users who manually added USE=gtk3 to make.conf, this >> means regular emerge conflicts after sync, forcing them to *guess* >> whether "-gtk" or "-gtk3" in pacakge.use is the better choice. Maybe >> with portage auto-suggesting the wrong solution just to add to the >> wonderful user experience :/ >> > See, now this is an example of a good email as to why supporting both > can be a hassle for more than just one desktop. Instead of telling me > that I'm dumb for thinking it's a good idea to follow upstream's > supported ideas, and that we should force one or the other. > > The KDE team seems to be able to deal with it just fine, but somehow > it's impossible and hard for the GNOME team. Why is that? What does > KDE do differently that makes it feasible? > >
No, they didn't manage it, at all, which why we don't see Qt3/KDE3 in tree anymore.
