On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > That said, another important point is, will we be using a separate > > gtk-dfb 2.9/2.10 package set, or will we be using the main gtk debian > > package ? In this second case, are the gtk-gnome folk ready to move to > > gtk 2.10 for etch ? > > I'd hope we can use the main gtk debian package. I have no idea if the > Gnome packagers are ready or not or if they are even considering > packaging 2.10 for Etch given the release planning and the upcoming > freeze. Especially since AFAICT 2.10 has not yet been released... It would be very nice if g-i could use udebs "produced" along with the main gtk package. AFAIK gtk+ 2.10 should be ready sometimes in May 2006 (see [1]): "2.10 – GTK+ 2.10 is planned to be released around May 2006. Possible features include printing support and better introspection." As said before, the best we can do is try and come up with an unofficial udeb based on some CVS snapshot (maybe working together on an Alioth repository), and see what happens: if 2.10 will be out in time, the udeb can be used to give support to gtk debian packagers (in case they needed any: compilation flags come to my mind); if 2.10 delays too long and we're ready with our udeb, we can decide to use our 2.9.x package (it wouldn't be too different than using the 2.0.9 as far as alignement with upstream is concerned). I don't think Denis or Mike would be disappointed if g-i were still based on 2.0.9 since it's obvious that we've done the best we could, given the weird situation of libraries we are stuck with: OTOH we cannot actively contribute to their work which is now based on the developement of the very latest versions of the libs, and this would be a pity both for them and for us. ciao, Davide [1] http://www.gtk.org/plan/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature