Re: gtk 2.0.x or 2.9+ for etch g-i ? (Was: graphics or text as default)
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:45:02AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:07 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > 1) you did comment on gtk 2.9+ for etch as the main gtk package, but does
> > this advice also hold in a 2.0.x vs 2.9+ d-i gtk-dfb scenario ?
> As written previously upstream changed the ABI number so updating to GTK
> 2.9 would require updating libgnomeui (and probably some other parts of
> GNOME with it) to 2.15, I don't think that's something we want to do for
> now no
Yeah, but we use only gtk, no gnome components.
> I don't know how the d-i uses GTK, but does the ABI number change has an
> impact on it too?
Given that right now we are using only gtk 2.0.x, and that there are some
features (like the new C-based graphical partitioner Xavier Oswald is working
on) which need a newer than gtk 2.6 version. So, no i don't think in the
current state of g-i, that the ABI number will be an issue.
> > 2) do you have any comment and advice concerning re-use of the gtk packaging
> > infrastructure to build the needed .udebs and -dev libraries, in such a way
> > that they would not conflict with the remaining gtk libraries.
> Take the GTK source package, rename it, drop the binary packages you are
> not interested too, renamed the other ones to no conflict? Then you
> probably need to make them conflict with the unstable packages or change
> the location of the files and the .pc, etc according to that. Note that
> update to GTK 2.9 requires to package pango 1.13 too and a libcairo 1.1
> and might have to do similar changes for them too. That's really a non
> trivial way, do you really need the new version for etch?
Well, it is that or 2.0.x. Davide or Attilio already have some experimental
packages. We need to rebuild the stuff with the -directfb support, so i guess
this will mean building new binary packages, and doing an additional build for
it, not sure.