Mailing List Archive

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:43:10 +0200
Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> wrote:

> What do YOU think about removing these from tree?
>
> gtk-engines/gtk-engines-0.12.ebuild:DEPEND="=x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*
> gtk-engines-begtk/gtk-engines-begtk-1.0.1-r2.ebuild:DEPEND="=x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*"
[snip]


As long as we have GTK+-1.2 in the tree, I'd rather keep them in.

Kind regards,
--
Andrej "Ticho" Kacian <ticho at gentoo dot org>
Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

maillog: 25/02/2007-13:53:18(+0100): Andrej Kacian types
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:43:10 +0200
> Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > What do YOU think about removing these from tree?
> >
> > gtk-engines/gtk-engines-0.12.ebuild:DEPEND="=x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*
> > gtk-engines-begtk/gtk-engines-begtk-1.0.1-r2.ebuild:DEPEND="=x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*"
> [snip]
>
> As long as we have GTK+-1.2 in the tree, I'd rather keep them in.

I think that was sort of the point.
Did you see that last one in the list. :)

--
/ Georgi Georgiev / Am I SHOPLIFTING? /
\ chutz@gg3.net \ \
/ http://www.gg3.net/ / /

maillog: 25/02/2007-22:38:54(+0900): çÅÏÒÇÉ çÅÏÒÇÉÅ× types
> maillog: 25/02/2007-13:53:18(+0100): Andrej Kacian types
> > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:43:10 +0200
> > Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > What do YOU think about removing these from tree?
> > >
> > > gtk-engines/gtk-engines-0.12.ebuild:DEPEND="=x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*
> > > gtk-engines-begtk/gtk-engines-begtk-1.0.1-r2.ebuild:DEPEND="=x11-libs/gtk+-1.2*"
> > [snip]
> >
> > As long as we have GTK+-1.2 in the tree, I'd rather keep them in.
>
> I think that was sort of the point.
> Did you see that last one in the list. :)

Ooops, my wrong, it was all bad wrapping. I should really stop rushing
replies.

--
(* Georgi Georgiev (* Zapp: You win again, gravity! (*
*) chutz@gg3.net *) *)
(* http://www.gg3.net/ (* (*
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:37:33 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> 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 <ticho at gentoo dot org>
Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

Andrej Kacian <ticho@gentoo.org> posted 20070225170755.4b1d6cbe@localhost,
excerpted below, on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:07:55 +0100:

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:37:33 -0600
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> 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

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> 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 <ticho at gentoo dot org>
Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

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

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:24:15 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> 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.

It's the same reason we use emerge for installing packages instead of using
LFS.

Kind regards,
--
Andrej "Ticho" Kacian <ticho at gentoo dot org>
Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

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

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 <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> 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

On 2/28/07, Christian Birchinger <joker@gentoo.org> 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

Dňa Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:02:54 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <drobbins.daniel@gmail.com> 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 <ticho at gentoo org>
Gentoo Linux developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

On 2/27/07, Andrej Kacian <ticho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:24:15 -0500
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> 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

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:08:34 +0100
Andrej Kacian <ticho@gentoo.org> 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

"Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com> posted
fcaeb9bf0703030635j6be68a2dh309bcc1b0120666a@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:35:16 +0700:

> On 2/27/07, Andrej Kacian <ticho@gentoo.org> 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

On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 10:21 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> "Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com> posted
> fcaeb9bf0703030635j6be68a2dh309bcc1b0120666a@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
> below, on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:35:16 +0700:
>
> > On 2/27/07, Andrej Kacian <ticho@gentoo.org> 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: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

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 org for a fact or just for effect
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

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 org for a fact or just for effect
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)