Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:09:31 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 285185] graphics/gdk-pixbuf2 Unable to run gkrellm after update to gdk-pixbuf2, xpm not supported
Message-ID:  <bug-285185-7788-sS1dGKpH1S@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-285185-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-285185-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D285185

Charlie Li <vishwin@freebsd.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|New                         |Open
              Flags|                            |maintainer-feedback+
           Assignee|ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org      |desktop@FreeBSD.org

--- Comment #11 from Charlie Li <vishwin@freebsd.org> ---
I don't intend on flavourising this. With the current gdk-pixbuf code, can't
really build the other loaders separately/isolated without a lot more
complexity in both code and port. Flavourising adds more complexity to the
ports framework without much benefit since this has many consumers.

Also not exactly keen on re-enabling OTHER by default; upstream has been fi=
rm
about discouraging use of effectively unmaintained code. However, one of the
upstream maintainers split these loaders into a separate repository with a
build system to match. I'm open to porting that and removing the OTHER opti=
on.

(In reply to rkoberman from comment #2)
Was the commit message, both with the changelog link and the explicit separ=
ate
notable mention of this, not enough?

wrt POLA in general, sometimes upstreams have to make decisions to keep the=
ir
projects moving. What can seem like a sudden astonishing change may have be=
en
brewing for some time but consumers were not paying attention (for a variet=
y of
reasons, like debt) until the full impact happened. In this specific case, =
they
admitted that doing this in the existing release branch was poorly executed,
but it had to be done.

(In reply to Felix Palmen from comment #9)
Upstream wants to divest these loaders entirely from the main codebase.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-285185-7788-sS1dGKpH1S>