[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gtk 2.0.x or 2.9+ for etch g-i ? (Was: graphics or text as default)

On 5/16/06, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:34:27AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 15 May 2006 23:40, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Another aspect not to forget about this too. We have made considerable
> > effort to bring the directfb code to gtk 2.9+. We have involved
> > external folk outside of d-i to help us and make this happen (I am
> > thinking of Dennis and Mike in particular here, but there may be
> > others), and if we are going to end not using it in etch after all,
> > this may not be good for motivation for finding help the next time we
> > need it.
> I agree, but we cannot really do very much unless upstream actually
> releases the versions into which directfb was merged and those versions
> are packaged for Debian. Alternatives have been discussed several times
> already.

This is where release management and planning comes in. It is more important
to know, not how the situation is today, but what it will be at freeze time
and at release time. But the decision we take today, will influence that.

If we decide that 2.9+ and 2.10 is the way to go for etch, then we should be
pro-active for this, and start experimenting, and even making them the default
NOW. So we can discover any bugs and other problems, and have time to fix
them. At this point, and with the freeze a bit over two month away, inaction
stands very much aking to deciding on 2.0.x, which is something important
members of our g-i team have said is sub-optimal.

I have always been of the oppinion that going for 2.9+ is the best
approach. I am willing to take the time to test the ppc daily builds
(peobably i386, too, if nobody steps in) that use 2.9+, but I don't
have the time to actually try to do the building and hacking ('though
there might be time slots from time to time which might allow me to do

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

Reply to: