Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 10:21 +, Duncan wrote: > "Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted > [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted > below, on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:35:16 +0700: > > > On 2/27/07, Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Because it's much more convenient to just go "emerge theme" instead of > >> googling up the upstream website, finding the link to download, > >> download it, unpack and figure out how to install. > > > > Me too. Should we create a theme overlay (officially) and move non-code > > themes there? > > Now that's IMO a very useful idea! =8^) I too find themes available in > portage useful, but equally don't necessarily believe they belong in the > main tree. An overlay seems to me to be the perfect solution. Additionally themes being in portage or an overlay (even just data packages) gives users the benefit of not having to check for updates from tons of different places for different themes. Just emerge --update world and all is taken care of. As far as gtk-1* itself is concerned, GNOME team does not want to maintain it - however several other developers have already stepped up (in past threads) to take over maintainership. Just need to formalize it with someone at some point in metadata.xml In other words - gtk1 is probably not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer (wxwindows, gnome) Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
"Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:35:16 +0700: > On 2/27/07, Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Because it's much more convenient to just go "emerge theme" instead of >> googling up the upstream website, finding the link to download, >> download it, unpack and figure out how to install. > > Me too. Should we create a theme overlay (officially) and move non-code > themes there? Now that's IMO a very useful idea! =8^) I too find themes available in portage useful, but equally don't necessarily believe they belong in the main tree. An overlay seems to me to be the perfect solution. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:08:34 +0100 Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because it's much more convenient to just go "emerge theme" instead of > googling up the upstream website, finding the link to download, > download it, unpack and figure out how to install. I don't know about that. One reason Opera themes will probably never be in any tree is because installing them means you go to http://my.opera.com/, you click on a pretty picture of a theme and then click Yes when asked if you want to keep the theme, by which time the web browser has already morphed into that skin. All Opera does is drop a .zip file somewhere in $HOME/.opera/ , the contents of that file being subject to certain standards. This is definitely not rocket science. So if you want $WM to provide an easy way to install a theme you pick from a website, just fix $WM and send the patches $UPSTREAM. I tried with KDE. The reference "Get new themes" to http://www.kde-look.org/ from the Control Center is pretty lame, indeed. _Apparently_ KDE has no standard for theme packages because I see installation instructions on the pages describing themes. > It's the same reason we use emerge for installing packages instead of > using LFS. Depends on where the theme files (need to) go. If $HOME were not good enough, I can imagine there is a desire to provide a generic ebuild to which any particular theme package could be attached. I think this would be useful for purposes like corporate branding but then again, these ebuilds are not difficult to write or put in an overlay. If all $WMs' $UPSTREAM would _simply_ standardise theme packages, there would be no need for separate theme packages in the portage tree. All we are achieving right now is doing (part of) $UPSTREAM's work for them in the portage tree (in a non-standard way) instead of helping standardise their software in the first place. Kind regards, JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On 2/27/07, Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:24:15 -0500 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For anything else, let the user download what they want and use it as > they see fit. There's not much reason to track them in the package > manager. That being said, I'm not opposed to the themes staying in the > tree, either. I'm just trying to find out people's motivations for > either keeping them/removing them. Because it's much more convenient to just go "emerge theme" instead of googling up the upstream website, finding the link to download, download it, unpack and figure out how to install. Me too. Should we create a theme overlay (officially) and move non-code themes there? -- Duy -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
Dňa Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:02:54 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal: > #3 It's ok to add themes to Portage if they are part of an official > theme collection for a particular package. That way we have all the > official themes - everything else would be up to the user to install. What if there is some unofficial, user-contributed theme which is very, very popular among users of relevant package. I think that makes it a perfect candidate for being in portage[1], while not falling under your three exceptions. > Portage was really designed for executable software, not for arbitrary > collections of binary data (themes, ezines, etc.) Not that > collecting/indexing those things is bad, just not really what Portage > is aimed at. Realizing that I am replying to someone who was at the birth of Portage, I disagree - Portage is a means of getting filesets installed on a system in a controlled way. Choice of these filesets should be purely at packagers' discretion. Of course, common sense has to be applied. 1. The reason for this is the same as the one we hate certain distributions, which force us to install nvidia drivers ourselves, without package manager aid. Kind regards, -- Andrej Kacian Gentoo Linux developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On 2/28/07, Christian Birchinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Those are theme-engines and not just a few pixmaps and with an rc file. The main part of those engines are compiled libraries. Don't treat them like a few files the user just has to copy in his homedir. Noted. Thanks for the reminder that it isn't always black and white :) -Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
Hey Chris, I pretty much agree with you in regards to themes. Without strict rules, we can suddenly have floods of ~300 theme ebuilds and they'll all get added to the tree. I'd suggest another exception: #3 It's ok to add themes to Portage if they are part of an official theme collection for a particular package. That way we have all the official themes - everything else would be up to the user to install. Portage was really designed for executable software, not for arbitrary collections of binary data (themes, ezines, etc.) Not that collecting/indexing those things is bad, just not really what Portage is aimed at. -Daniel On 2/26/07, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 10:43 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 21:31 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > > Andrej Kacian wrote: > > > It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes should > > > go last, along with gtk1 itself. > > > > > > Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? > > > > Point, set, and match. > > > > Much as I hate gtk1, I agree with this. Leave the themes as long as > they're working and there's apps. I'm just curious, but why? It's not like people can't get GTK+ themes themselves quite easily. Personally, I don't think we should have themes (for anything) in the tree except for two cases: #1. The theme is considered part of an upstream package set, fex. if GNOME or KDE ship with a small set of themes, they should be included #2. The themes are made by Gentoo For anything else, let the user download what they want and use it as they see fit. There's not much reason to track them in the package manager. That being said, I'm not opposed to the themes staying in the tree, either. I'm just trying to find out people's motivations for either keeping them/removing them. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:24:15PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 10:43 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 21:31 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > > > Andrej Kacian wrote: > > > > It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes > > > > should > > > > go last, along with gtk1 itself. > > > > > > > > Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? > > > > > > Point, set, and match. > > > > > > > Much as I hate gtk1, I agree with this. Leave the themes as long as > > they're working and there's apps. > > I'm just curious, but why? It's not like people can't get GTK+ themes > themselves quite easily. Personally, I don't think we should have > themes (for anything) in the tree except for two cases: > > #1. The theme is considered part of an upstream package set, fex. if > GNOME or KDE ship with a small set of themes, they should be included > #2. The themes are made by Gentoo > > For anything else, let the user download what they want and use it as > they see fit. There's not much reason to track them in the package > manager. That being said, I'm not opposed to the themes staying in the > tree, either. I'm just trying to find out people's motivations for > either keeping them/removing them. Those are theme-engines and not just a few pixmaps and with an rc file. The main part of those engines are compiled libraries. Don't treat them like a few files the user just has to copy in his homedir. Christian PS: please stop those weekly attempts to remove Gtk1 from the tree. Not everyone is using Gnome or KDE and lots of smaller dockapps and similar tools are Gtk1 and work perfectly fine. (Yes, this was a rant and it's my personal opinion) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 10:43 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 21:31 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > > Andrej Kacian wrote: > > > It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes > > > should > > > go last, along with gtk1 itself. > > > > > > Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? > > > > Point, set, and match. > > > > Much as I hate gtk1, I agree with this. Leave the themes as long as > they're working and there's apps. I'm just curious, but why? It's not like people can't get GTK+ themes themselves quite easily. Personally, I don't think we should have themes (for anything) in the tree except for two cases: #1. The theme is considered part of an upstream package set, fex. if GNOME or KDE ship with a small set of themes, they should be included #2. The themes are made by Gentoo For anything else, let the user download what they want and use it as they see fit. There's not much reason to track them in the package manager. That being said, I'm not opposed to the themes staying in the tree, either. I'm just trying to find out people's motivations for either keeping them/removing them. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 21:31 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > Andrej Kacian wrote: > > It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes > > should > > go last, along with gtk1 itself. > > > > Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? > > Point, set, and match. > Much as I hate gtk1, I agree with this. Leave the themes as long as they're working and there's apps. Daniel -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:10:16 + (UTC) Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Keep in mind that those who have it already > merged along with their favorite theme can keep them in overlay, so > removing the themes from the tree simply keeps new users from merging > something that's already on its way out, only to have to deal with its > removal relatively soon (months?) thereafter. Um, you're contradicting yourself here. If new users install the themes, they can go on using them after they're removed just as those who already have it installed. The point I was trying to make is that themes are in fact (optional) support packages for gtk1, not real applications using it, and should only be removed once the library itself goes away. Kind regards, -- Andrej "Ticho" Kacian Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
Andrej Kacian wrote: > It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes should > go last, along with gtk1 itself. > > Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? Point, set, and match. -- by design, by neglect dirtyepic gentoo orgfor a fact or just for effect 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
Andrej Kacian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:07:55 +0100: > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:37:33 -0600 > Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Seriously, IMHO the less we have depending on GTK+-1 the better. >> Others will disagree loudly. > > It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes > should go last, along with gtk1 itself. > > Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? I think the idea is that it helps discourage new uptake, since it is on its way to eventual removal. Keep in mind that those who have it already merged along with their favorite theme can keep them in overlay, so removing the themes from the tree simply keeps new users from merging something that's already on its way out, only to have to deal with its removal relatively soon (months?) thereafter. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:37:33 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seriously, IMHO the less we have depending on GTK+-1 the better. Others > will disagree loudly. It makes sense slowly removing *applications* depending on gtk1. Themes should go last, along with gtk1 itself. Gtk1 is already ugly enough, do you want it to be even more ugly? Kind regards, -- Andrej "Ticho" Kacian Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: What do you think about removing gtk-1.2 theme engines from tree?
Samuli Suominen wrote: > What do YOU think about removing these from tree? *I* think it's a great idea, but *I* may be heavily medicated at the moment. Seriously, IMHO the less we have depending on GTK+-1 the better. Others will disagree loudly. > Related picture, > http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/?view=1163919784-cat-detonator.jpg Oh noes! -- by design, by neglect dirtyepic gentoo orgfor a fact or just for effect 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature