Could you please consider making the gtk+ smoothscroll patch optional? My main point is that it can make some software like gtk2 email clients almost unusable on slower machines. There are other points too: - this is an unofficial feature - portage has the power to do this - Mozilla Firefox and WinXp have this feature too ;) My suggestion is that 'smoothscroll' can be enabled/disabled via a USE flag. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
*** Bug 103453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 103456 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'm sorry about the dublicate bugs. Bugzilla seemed to be down when I tried to submit it, so I pushed the stop button and in the meantime checked if I wanted to change anything in my report... I didn't realize that all of them were sent anyway.
Ok.. so this report didn't go too smoothly. Anyways... I feel that this is important and as I said in bug #103456, this affects all gtk2 text editors as well. Also, what I mean by "Firefox and WinXP having this feature" is that they provide an option to disable smooth scrolling. And for a good reason too, IMO.
*lol* I was just about to file the same Bug :-)
Any word on this?
*** Bug 115770 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
we need to decide if we are removing, keeping, or making this patch optional since its a gentoo-only patch. ( unsupported upstream ) reference here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103811
I see that smoothscroll has been removed in gtk+ 2.8.12. Could you reconsider this decision? I'm sure that many users love it.
No, we decided we didn't want to support local feature patches such as this. If you really care about it, you should try and get it accepted upstream.
I think that is a regression from what we had. The fact that the upstream maintainers have ignored the patch doesn't mean it isn't an important usability feature gtk really should have and Gentoo has been promoting for a long time now. The main issue in this bug seems to be with the existance of the patch, not with the actual feature it adds, I don't see why this request got honored in the first place.
we need a proper patch submitted on the upstream bug. Anyone interested should provide a proper patch to upstream.
The patch is sufficient, it is a regression that it got removed. The esd patch is not upstream either, still we have it. Don't measure with 2 sticks.
(In reply to comment #10) > No, we decided we didn't want to support local feature patches such as this. > If you really care about it, you should try and get it accepted upstream. > Surely local patches which can be turned on with USE flags is a part of the power of gentoo? Otherwise you might as well be running a binary-only distro.
(In reply to comment #13) > The patch is sufficient, it is a regression that it got removed. > > The esd patch is not upstream either, still we have it. Don't measure with 2 > sticks. > Could the smoothscroll patch be re-added as an optional (probably opt-in) USE flag please? Not having smoothscroll after once having it makes things feel awful. I'm currently running it by applying the patch using solar's http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/portage_misc/bashrc.autopatch, but that won't work forever.
smoothscroll patch for gtk+ 2.8 doesn't apply anymore to gtk+ 2.10. Is there any hope that the patch will be updated?
foser: You are a walking contradiction.... Copying and pasting from the upstream bug... Comment #16 from Owen Taylor (gtk+ developer, points: 25) The Gentoo people really need a big LART. Not only was this patch not considered ready to go into GTK+, it changes the GTK+ public API... Well that sounds like a darn good enough reason for me for us not to include it. Comment #17 from Ernst Persson (points: 8) <foser> ernstp: i'm not happy you added my patch without my consent.. i made it buildable, i still consider it halfbroken <foser> it is open.. but i'm not pushing it for inclusion as long as i'm not content with it, thats the difference tberman It changes the GTK+ public APIs... toss it.
we will not re-apply or update this patch.
