gtk2 ?!?!?!!

Abaddon · 2005-02-14 22:56:22

:: Synchronizing package databases...

All Done: Download Succesfull!

All Done: Download Succesfull!
:: xorg: local version (11R6.8.2-1) is newer than repo version (11R6.8.1-1)
:: Above packages will be skipped.  To manually upgrade use 'pacman -S <pkg>'

Targets: libvisual-0.2.0-1 atk-1.9.0-1 pango-1.8.0-1 gtk2-2.6.1-5 libvisual-plugins-0.2.0-1 amarok-1.2.0-1 clamav-0.83-1

Total Package Size:   13.4 MB

Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n]

Uhm, I really don't like gtk2 and I don't want to have it in my system. What happend?

Snowman · 2005-02-14 23:12:32

libvisual-plugins depends on gtk2

phrakture · 2005-02-14 23:23:38

Abaddon wrote:

Uhm, I really don't like gtk2 and I don't want to have it in my system. What happend?

god, you people.... GTK has nothing to do with gnome - I understand everyone hates "bloat"[1] and everyone thinks gnome is the devil... however GTK has nothing to do with gnome... GTK stands for "Gimp Tool Kit" - it was a library written so they could make The Gimp.... it you don't want GTK on your system, you better be prepared for most apps to look like... xedit...

-----------------
[1] bloat is a very odd word these days, as people tend to think modular design is bloat... go figure...

thegnu · 2005-02-15 00:02:12

*runns xedit*
oooooooo! aaaaaaaahhh!

Gullible Jones · 2005-02-15 02:49:09

You can always use QT... In which case you should be prepared to download the whole bloody mass of lard that is KDE.

miqorz · 2005-02-15 04:15:37

I can understand wanting to avoid an APPLICATION LAYER like esd or arts but come the fuck on.

gtk2 is just a lib. You won't notice it's there.

dtw · 2005-02-15 08:14:43

maybe a bit harsh! but fair

Abaddon · 2005-02-15 10:50:12

it you don't want GTK on your system, you better be prepared for most apps to look like... xedit...

No, no no, I don't have it and my apps don't look like xedid.

I can understand wanting to avoid an APPLICATION LAYER like esd or arts but come the fuck on.
gtk2 is just a lib. You won't notice it's there.

I notice, because I have *small* hard drive. I wonder why people think that if they have new hardware then everyone has to have... And I don't want to have any libraries which I don't need. I also don't need atk, pango etc.

Anyway, gtk2 sux hard, please do something ;/

miqorz · 2005-02-15 11:28:54

omgod wtf u sux cuz u gotz 2 hav a libomgod wtfwtf

Bjørn · 2005-02-15 13:58:07

Abaddon, Arch Linux very likely can't help you here. One option you have is not to use libvisual-plugins, which depends on gtk2. Another option is to see if maybe you can compile it yourself, who knows maybe you can leave out gtk2 at compile time.

phrakture · 2005-02-15 16:06:53

how big is the GTK lib? like 200k? the other options is to statically link ALL programs... which is going to add like 100K per program... so you decide...

Bjørn · 2005-02-15 16:32:26

Actually GTK2 takes about 28 MB on your harddisk.

phrakture · 2005-02-15 16:50:23

Bjørn wrote:

Actually GTK2 takes about 28 MB on your harddisk.

yeah, I thought so... but still... 28 megs is nothing... burn it on a CDRW and use it as a perma-mounted quasi harddrive if you really need extra megs...

Abaddon · 2005-02-15 17:33:17

Bjørn wrote:

Abaddon, Arch Linux very likely can't help you here. One option you have is not to use libvisual-plugins, which depends on gtk2. Another option is to see if maybe you can compile it yourself, who knows maybe you can leave out gtk2 at compile time.

k,k, but there isn't option to not use these plugins It'd be good solution, but if I compile amarok using abs without libvisual, I'll see gtk2 (and libvisual probably) req on next pacman -Syu.

Bjørn · 2005-02-15 17:47:51

True. I'm not familiar enough with the pacman/pacsrc tools to know if there is a solution to this problem. It could be something like adding your own repository above the default ones with the package in it.

phrakture · 2005-02-15 18:05:26

if you recompile with abs and don't want an -Syu to overwrite it, just change the name:

pkgname=amarok-custom
...
provides=('amarok')
...

Abaddon · 2005-02-15 18:10:36

Thx, I'll try.

sarah31 · 2005-02-15 18:52:14

I am not sure what graphical toolkit you are going to like if you don't like GTK. While I am not fan of ANY linux toolkit the GTK and GTK2 are the least cumbersome. While qt stuff is purdy it comes at a huge cost usually and no one really uses tk or curses much anymore because they are considered fugly too.

Anyway the best you can do is to try rebuild whatever like without gtk libraries. I wish you luck

phrakture · 2005-02-15 19:40:26

sarah31 wrote:

because they are considered fugly too.

I agree.... Motif is one of the worst looks ever.... blegh

miqorz · 2005-02-15 20:01:57

I like motif and curses..

Abaddon · 2005-02-15 20:50:34

I've been using almost only qt/kde apps (+ console apps) for approximately two years.

sarah31 · 2005-02-15 23:43:00

Abaddon wrote:

I've been using almost only qt/kde apps (+ console apps) for approximately two years.

then you should see if you can compile out any gtk from the package that is hauling it in and see if it supports if not you will have to do without the app that uses the that plugin/lib.

skoal · 2005-02-16 05:34:51

I wonder what pacman will do if you have "gtk2" in your "IgnorePKG=" in pacman.conf, and you pull a future package that requires it, and "gtk2" had not been installed already.

I know I just get "warning" messages when it's already installed and skips it. The original post didn't seem to indicate if he was using the "ignorePKG" option already. If so, I guess pacman will still try to pull it in as a dependency? I didn't think the "IgnorePKG" worked exclusively for pre-existing installed packages. If that's what his post is concerned about, I apologize, since I've missed something in the prior posts.

By the way, I think Phrakture's suggestion is best. However, I'm just lazy with my PKGBUILDs and bump the version number up really high instead. I think all I get is a warning when I upgrade. I just change the download part to match what's actually on the server, instead of using "pkgver". That way, I keep packages with the same name and get a warning to let me know I got custom stuff running lose on my system, for just those packages with the warnings. And as other packages requiring it need newer versions of that particular custom package I have, that warning lets me know I need to update my custom package as well. Does the "provides" with a custom package name handle that, since the custom package name is different? I don't know. Anyways, I'm probably not handling it very elegantly, but it seems to suit my needs for the moment.

iphitus · 2005-02-16 08:57:14

I ran mandrake back in the days on my desktop with a huge 6gb hdd that was shared with another distro. so my / partition was only 3gb, yet i managed to fit GTK, GNOME and KDE/QT on it.

Besides, you should give GTK apps a shot once in a while, you're hiding yourself from some awesome programs man. I'm a GTK user, but I still install KDE and any available QT apps, just to give it a shot. Course, i've always ended back up on what I was using before....

iphitus

JGC · 2005-02-16 09:15:55

I wonder what people have against GLIB/GTK and gnome and every package that depends on a small lib of those...

If you don't like it, then install an old distro like Debian potato and go play with XFree86 3.3.6 and pure xlib programming, in the days where they didn't have gtk2.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-02-14 22:56:22

gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#2 2005-02-14 23:12:32

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#3 2005-02-14 23:23:38

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#4 2005-02-15 00:02:12

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#5 2005-02-15 02:49:09

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#6 2005-02-15 04:15:37

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#7 2005-02-15 08:14:43

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#8 2005-02-15 10:50:12

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#9 2005-02-15 11:28:54

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#10 2005-02-15 13:58:07

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#11 2005-02-15 16:06:53

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#12 2005-02-15 16:32:26

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#13 2005-02-15 16:50:23

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#14 2005-02-15 17:33:17

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#15 2005-02-15 17:47:51

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#16 2005-02-15 18:05:26

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#17 2005-02-15 18:10:36

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#18 2005-02-15 18:52:14

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#19 2005-02-15 19:40:26

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#20 2005-02-15 20:01:57

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#21 2005-02-15 20:50:34

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#22 2005-02-15 23:43:00

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#23 2005-02-16 05:34:51

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#24 2005-02-16 08:57:14

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

#25 2005-02-16 09:15:55

Re: gtk2 ?!?!?!!

Board footer