Dnia 2015-09-10, o godz. 08:46:41 Alec Ten Harmsel <a...@alectenharmsel.com> napisał(a):
> If upstream gives the option of gtk2 or gtk3, why shouldn't the ebuild? > From the "I want a usable system with as little code as possible" and "I > want a system tailored to my needs" standpoints, having only one version > of gtk makes quite a bit of sense. This is the same case as with many other libraries which suffered major API changes -- SDL, for example. Just because upstream *thinks* they support two GTK+ versions, doesn't mean they do. Only one of the versions is well-tested, and the second one sometimes isn't tested at all, neither by upstream nor by the developer. The happy end result is, sometimes user has choice between 'working package' and 'package randomly segfaulting when you least expect it'. Of course, it's all hidden nicely under USE=gtk2 and USE=gtk3, so just *maybe* if you have the time to read local flag descriptions for every single package you may notice which of the flags should be enabled to get a working app. But yes, wasting people's time and offering easy way to data loss is better than not supporting some imaginary corner case when you can actually use some fancy combination of applications that can actually run without that one library without losing stability and benefit you. I hope you are ready to pay the developers who will waste their time figuring out what goes wrong when you report a bug, until they figure out it's because you have forced GTK+ version which upstream thought they're supporting but they do not. That's certainly a better alternative than paying for hardware that can handle loading two libraries. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgph8vxwswJ68.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
