[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Abysmal state of GTK build
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: Abysmal state of GTK build |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:43:42 -0500 |
Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:
> So, in your view it would be fine if we didn't use -gtk by default even
> though GNOME is Debian's default desktop?
I don't think I have any categorical opinion on that front either in
general, or at the moment. And since I don't use gnome, emacs-gtk, or
emacs tool/menu/scroll bars right now (and haven't for a long while),
I'd need more information.
One broad question might be "what is 'apt install emacs' for"?[1]
i.e. is it intended to provide the "best/preferred typical emacs", and
people should expect that it might produce substantially disruptive
changes over time (presumably only on major debian release boundaries),
i.e. lucid -> gtk -> something-new, or is it intended to provide the
emacs that goes with the default desktop (also potentially disruptive
across releases), or...
[1] Note to all that the "emacs" package is currently an empty
metapackage that actually depends on "emacs-gtk | emacs-lucid |
emacs-nox", so that any flavor will satisfy an "emacs" dependency,
but the flavor listed first in the metapackage's dependencies is the
one you get if you just try to install it directly. I believe I
chose that ordering years ago, based on what appeared to be the
upstrem preferences at the time.
Ignoring the disruptive transition for a moment, I also wonder how much
it'd actually matter if emacs (eventually) preferred something other
than emacs-gtk. Then people using gnome would "just" need to know to
install emacs-gtk or emacs-gnome instead of emacs. (Any gnome-related
package that wants an emacs, could still depend on the concrete flavor
if appropriate.)
That said, given the potential disruption. I might well be inclined to
set a moderately high bar for changes. I also suspect a minor avalanche
of bugs will be filed if/when we do change the default to something
substantially different -- given varying opinions.
What's in a name?
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, (continued)
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Po Lu, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Po Lu, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Dmitry Gutov, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Po Lu, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Stefan Monnier, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Rob Browning, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Sean Whitton, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build,
Rob Browning <=
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Visuwesh, 2022/08/22
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Po Lu, 2022/08/22
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Sean Whitton, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Lynn Winebarger, 2022/08/21
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Jean Louis, 2022/08/22
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Po Lu, 2022/08/22
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Tim Cross, 2022/08/22
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Po Lu, 2022/08/22
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Tim Cross, 2022/08/22
- Re: Abysmal state of GTK build, Po Lu, 2022/08/22