Looking at the new netscape-flash/netscape-flash-9.0.21.55 ebuild, I find the gtk useflag is used to download or not the stand-alone flash player, but it is not used for deps. Does flash player plugin (not the stand-alone) require gtk? If not, why gtk is always required? If yes, then gtk useflag is improperly used to select if stand-alone version should or not be installed.
$ scanelf -n /opt/netscape/plugins/libflashplayer.so TYPE NEEDED FILE ET_DYN libdl.so.2,libpthread.so.0,libX11.so.6,libXext.so.6,libXt.so.6,libfreetype.so.6,libfontconfig.so.1,libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0,libgobject-2.0.so.0,libglib-2.0.so.0,libm.so.6,libc.so.6 /opt/netscape/plugins/libflashplayer.so
As I said, if gtk+ is really a dependency, why there is a "gtk" useflag? If we want stand-alone player optional, we need another useflag (like "standalong"), and not gtk.
(In reply to comment #2) > As I said, if gtk+ is really a dependency, why there is a "gtk" useflag? Because it installs gtk GUI player? How about that we make it not optional instead of inventing yet another redundant use flag?
(In reply to comment #3) > Because it installs gtk GUI player? Yes, but gtk useflag does mean (at least most of times) optional support for gtk. If gtk support is not optional, it is not appropriate. > How about that we make it not optional > instead of inventing yet another redundant use flag? I see no problem doing that. If people *really* want it optionally installed, either stand-alone should be an additional package (so, splitting this one in plugin and standalone packages), or they should use a portage overlay. I think the later is easier.
I do agree that the gtk use flag is inappropriate. Don't care about users whining about the binary or make gflashplayer its own package. Can't stand the inflationary, mistakable and reduplicating use flag additions...
We should probably make it a separate package. But we're not sure how they are going to package the final release.. So maybe we should instead just find a better use flag like standalone or player
(In reply to comment #6) > So maybe we should instead just find a > better use flag like standalone or player Even the plugin can be called "flash player", so player is not a good choice. standalone looks a good one. > But we're not sure how they are > going to package the final release.. 6 version had separate packages for standalone and plugin. 9 beta also has. Windows versions has only plugin (standalone not included). So, I guess the final release will have separate tarballs. If there is an standalone version, why not call it "flashplayer-standalone". Maybe also rename current package from "netscape-flash" to "flashplayer-plugin". I ask this because "netscape-flash-standalone" makes no sense.
We should probably add a gflashplayer package then...
Honestly, I don't understabd why people moan about the binary. It's not that it does any harm just because it's installed or wastes a lot of space. Making this optional or dividing this package in two is _so_ pointless.
Carlo certainly has a point
Created attachment 100888 [details, diff] media-video/flashplayer-9.0.21.55.diff I suggest to add nsplugin USE flag.and pkgmove to media-video/flashplayer.
the pkgmove is useless I think most people install it for the plugin, so it shouldn't be optional. I still favor just installing both without flags.
(In reply to comment #11) > I suggest to add nsplugin USE flag.and pkgmove to media-video/flashplayer. Like Oliver said, most people will want the nsplugin. But I think a pkgmove or pkgrename would be good. "netscape-flash" is far different from "(Adobe|Macromedia) Flash Player (Plugin)?". It is not even related to netscape in special. And netscape isn't at portage anymore. [Note: I know plugins are called nsplugins because they use a Netscape API to talk to (any) browser] I would suggest flash-?player-(plugin|standalone), in case we split this package in two, or flash-?player, with or without an useflag.
I removed the use flag. There really is no good reason not to install both.
Guys, Can I reopen the bug?.. I would like to agree with you. I want this gtk player to be optional. Here is my situation: I don't have gtk installed and have -gtk in my make.conf. So now because of one plugin it forces me to install the rest: [ebuild U ] net-www/netscape-flash-9.0.21.55 [7.0.68] [ebuild N ] x11-libs/gtk+-2.8.19 USE="X jpeg -debug -doc -tiff -xinerama" [ebuild N ] x11-misc/shared-mime-info-0.17-r2 [ebuild N ] dev-libs/atk-1.12.1 USE="-debug -doc" [ebuild N ] x11-libs/pango-1.12.3 USE="-debug -doc Please make it optional. I don't see any reason why I should have gtk installed.
sorry typo: I would like _NOT_ to agree with you
ah, is gtk not optional anymore? I didn't pay attention on that "libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0" Sorry. They've got alsa support but added gtk dependency. I hate adobe.
well, your friendly mozilla family browser already uses gtk+....
I don't have Firefox. [offtopic]Konqueror and Opera doing the job.[/offtopic] That's why I didn't have gtk installed and I'm only one who complains :) I'll try to complain to adobe as well...
