Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

> <...> > I'm sorry, I wrote too briefly. hasufell seems to be saying that gtk2 > should be deprecated now. I'm just agreeing with Rich that if upstream > supports both *and* the maintainer wants to support both, there's no > reason to force them to only support one. > <...> > As Rich has

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

> And its absolutely OK for a maintainer to close the bug as WONTFIX after a > lively discussion. Absolutelly yes. And it is users right to go and make that theyself (either in overlay or by proxymaint). The key of mystatement was in that NOBODY in Gentoo can (at least, should not have the

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> > >> > I like the general 'gtk' flag we generally use to

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/10/2015 11:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, hasufell > wrote: >> On 09/10/2015 08:15 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> >>> tldr: If the problem is USE flags, let's talk USE flags. If >>> it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > > I like the general 'gtk' flag we generally use to choose *which* > > toolkit, and local USE flags for specific versions, if they are > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > I like the general 'gtk' flag we generally use to choose *which* > toolkit, and local USE flags for specific versions, if they are > supported. But in that case, the general gtk flag should be > interpreted as the latest

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm ebuild would be providing a > package inferior to upstream. That sounds like spacefm with gtk3 is lacking anything. It is not. Providing choice for the sake of choice is not always a good idea.

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:13 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 02:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Suppose you want to run on a non-embedded system with limited RAM and the >> ability to choose means you can use one of the two libraries >> exclusively, thus eliminating the

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 02:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:13 AM, hasufell wrote: >> On 09/10/2015 02:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> Suppose you want to run on a non-embedded system with limited RAM and the >>> ability to choose means you can use one of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

Dnia 2015-09-10, o godz. 08:46:41 Alec Ten Harmsel 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:50 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 12:45 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:47 AM, hasufell wrote: >>> On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 02:44 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, hasufell 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 12:45 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:47 AM, hasufell wrote: >> On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> >>> For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm ebuild would be providing a >>> package inferior to upstream. >> >> That sounds

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, hasufell 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > 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 >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:47 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm ebuild would be providing a >> package inferior to upstream. > > That sounds like spacefm with gtk3 is lacking anything. It is

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 02:03 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Suppose you want to run on a non-embedded system with limited RAM and the > ability to choose means you can use one of the two libraries > exclusively, thus eliminating the need to load the other library? > Being able to control what libraries are

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 08:33 AM, hasufell wrote: > > So you are saying for the unlikely case that someone runs gentoo on a > desktop system where he cannot even compile gcc, llvm and others without > waiting for 2 weeks or setting up his on binhost, we have to provide a > backup-path for him, so that gtk3

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +0200, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 02:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > gtk2+gtk3 in RAM at the same time has a higher memory footprint than > > either one alone. If any package uses one or the other, it will end > > up being loaded into RAM, so there is

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, hasufell wrote: > > So we are breaking consistency and introduce maintenance and > configuration complexity, because we want to support a corner case that > isn't consistently supported anyway and will not be (because that's what > the gnome

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 10/09/2015 14:44, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, hasufell 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 03:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, hasufell wrote: > >> > >> So we are breaking consistency and introduce maintenance and > >> configuration complexity,

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 03:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, hasufell wrote: >> >> So we are breaking consistency and introduce maintenance and >> configuration complexity, because we want to support a corner case that >> isn't consistently supported anyway

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 04:31 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: > WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE users what they should use and what they should > not. You should really either reconsider your understanding of opensource or start to pay me. Gentoo is for the most part GPL-2 and you can fork, change and

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:57 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 04:31 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: >> WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE users what they should use and what they should >> not. > > You should really either reconsider your understanding of opensource or >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:07:16PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2015-09-10, o godz. 08:46:41 > Alec Ten Harmsel 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 05:41 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > There are lots of topics where I concede that QA has a point and can > utilize its influence; but 'consistency and usability' are not topics I > would normally expect them to impose on developers. > I am pretty sure tree consistency was the reason

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:35 AM, hasufell wrote: >> >> >> If this affects tree consistency and usability, then it is not just up >> to the maintainers. > > There are lots of topics where I concede

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Given the fact that we are short on manpower and that most part of the >> linux ecosystem is moving towards gtk3... there has been no good >> argument to support a toolkit version - that is (about to be) deprecated >> - for exotic corner use cases

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:05 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> Given the fact that we are short on manpower and that most part of the >>> linux ecosystem is moving towards gtk3... there has been no good >>> argument to support a toolkit

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/10/2015 01:47 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 08:21 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> For me to not support gtk2 in the spacefm ebuild would be >> providing a package inferior to upstream. > > That sounds like spacefm with gtk3 is lacking

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/10/2015 08:15 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > To my knowledge, the gtk3 version of spacefm *did* indeed have less > functionality, at first. I think they're mostly the same nowadays, > though. That's why spacefm ebuild did not switch to gtk3 when gtk3 support was still experimental. > That

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 08:15 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> tldr: If the problem is USE flags, let's talk USE flags. If it's >> supporting more than one toolkit in general, I see no reason not to >> let maintainers use their

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 9/10/15 8:05 PM, hasufell wrote: > a) the gnome maintainers already said they are not interested in > supporting it indefinitely (they are the maintainers of gtk+ as well) Aren't there at least some gtk2-only apps? It seems to me we're not that close to removal of gtk2 from the tree. I'm also

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/09/2015 03:37 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/09/2015 09:24 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> x11-misc/spacefm supports multiple toolkits as well. > > It shouldn't. Gtk3 is stable and gtk2 and gtk3 USE flags should be > removed to be consistent

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/09/2015 06:47 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 09:20 +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > > In chromium's case (a new gtk3-based ui that needs wider testing), > a local gtk3 USE flag does make sense. > > But in general,

[gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

A user asked for optional gtk3 support in www-client/chromium: However, reading e.g. says this: > having USE=gtk3 to enable gtk+-3 instead of gtk+-2 support is >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 00:24:55 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > > For stability and maintainability, I'd prefer www-client/chromium > > to use the upstream defaults (gtk+-2 AFAIK) since it's most common, > > tested, and supported configuration. If/when upstream moves to > > gtk+-3, we'd just follow. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/09/2015 12:20 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > A user asked for optional gtk3 support in www-client/chromium: > > > However, reading e.g. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/09/2015 09:24 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > x11-misc/spacefm supports multiple toolkits as well. It shouldn't. Gtk3 is stable and gtk2 and gtk3 USE flags should be removed to be consistent with the rest of the tree.

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:37:49 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 09/09/2015 09:24 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > > x11-misc/spacefm supports multiple toolkits as well. > > It shouldn't. Gtk3 is stable and gtk2 and gtk3 USE flags should be > removed to be consistent with the rest

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 09:20 +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: In chromium's case (a new gtk3-based ui that needs wider testing), a local gtk3 USE flag does make sense. But in general, the gnome team recommends avoiding the gtk3 flag whenever possible. We definitely don't want it to become a global

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/09/2015 03:17 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:37:49 +0200 > hasufell wrote: > >> On 09/09/2015 09:24 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >>> >>> x11-misc/spacefm supports multiple toolkits as well. >> >> It shouldn't. Gtk3 is stable and gtk2 and gtk3 USE flags

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > A user asked for optional gtk3 support in www-client/chromium: > > > However, reading e.g. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 11:00 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > I would really like a way to toggle gtk3 for testing. If you don't > want to expose it as a 'supported' option for users, then masking it > sounds fine to me. Then add the flag, document it in metadata.xml. But in general, try to avoid

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 11:00 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > I would really like a way to toggle gtk3 for testing. If you don't > > want to expose it as a 'supported' option for users, then masking it > > sounds

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/09/2015 05:40 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > app-editors/emacs > app-editors/emacs-vcs > app-editors/mousepad > app-i18n/fcitx > app-i18n/fcitx-configtool > app-i18n/ibus > app-i18n/ibus-unikey > app-i18n/imsettings > app-i18n/scim > app-i18n/scim-anthy > app-i18n/uim > app-misc/emelfm2 >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/09/15 11:48 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/09/2015 05:40 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> >> [ Snip list ] >> > > There was a tracker on bugzilla about it at some point, but > people didn't care enough, so I stopped filing bugs. Neither the >

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/09/15 11:16 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev > > wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 11:00 -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> I would really like a

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 09/09/2015 06:14 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > Right... So, back to the issue at hand. If a package -always- > depends on a gtk (usually gtk2), but can optionally be configured to > depend on gtk3 instead (and it should be optional because support > isn't clearly stable yet), what's the

Re: [gentoo-dev] www-client/chromium gtk3 support

On 9/9/15 5:48 PM, hasufell wrote: > There was a tracker on bugzilla about it at some point, but people > didn't care enough, so I stopped filing bugs. Neither the gnome team > nor QA had a strong enough opinion to enforce consistency here over > the whole tree. Looks like that was