On 09/10/2015 03:10 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> 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 team said and most upstream maintainers do). >> >> You'd actually have to start forking upstream projects if you are >> serious about this. > > Again, I'm saying that maintainers should be free to support multiple > versions if they wish to do so. They should not be required to do so. > And yes, I do realize that this limits options for users, but they're > welcome to proxy-maintain packages that do support the versions they > wish to use. If they want to fork upstream they're even welcome to do > that, but obviously that isn't going to happen often. > > I just don't think we should be in the business of saying "no" here.
Again, your proposed use case is 1) imaginary 2) currently impossible to support, because there are lots of applications which either force gtk3 in the ebuild or have only gtk3 supported upstream. It will be pretty much impossible to not have gtk3 installed or loaded into RAM, unless you don't use a DE in the first place and stick to terminals. > >> >> I think a lot of people just go wild when they see configure switches >> and stuff everything into USE flags without really considering the >> impact or the usefulness. >> >> It's not all about choice, it's also about sanity. >> > > And again, I'm just saying to leave it up to the maintainer. If this affects tree consistency and usability, then it is not just up to the maintainers.
