[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 Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:07:45AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:50 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > Sebastien, do you know if the development 2.9 gtk packages will be uploaded to
> > experimental or something such ? If so, would it be meaningful to have those
> > packages also include the build of the .udebs, and upload to unstable a
> > version of those with the main .debs disabled ? PAckaging synergy of this kind
> > is good to reduce workload for all involved.
> I don't intend to package GTK 2.9 right now, no. The new version change
> its ABI version as described by the announcement mail:
> "
> ...
> * GtkFileChooser:
>   - Communication with backends is now asynchronous to avoid
>     blocking on filesystem operations. Due to the required interface
>     changes, the GTK+ ABI version has been bumped to 2.10.0. Third-party
>     filesystem backends have to be ported to the new interface, other
>     modules, such as theme engines, input method modules or pixbuf
> loaders
>     have to be rebuilt so that they are installed in the right place
>     for GTK+ to find them.
> ..."
> We have enough work with GNOME 2.14 at the moment and the "ported to the
> new interface" part means it requires to go with libgnomeui 2.15 anyway
> I'm not interested to upload a GTK 2.9 variant building only the .udebs
> to unstable neither

Ok, but if someone else would be packaging those to produce .udebs, you have
no particular objection to uploading .debs to experimental at the same time ? 

Or would it make sense to build the gtk-dfb variant from the same cvs/svn repo
as the rest of the gtk stuff is done, instead of a standalone snapshot outside
of it ? 


Sven Luther

Reply to: