[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, Sebastien Bacher <seb128@debian.org> 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
    have to be rebuilt so that they are installed in the right place
    for GTK+ to find them.

I had a quick look over the changes and nothing on that list should
affect the G-I, AFAICT.

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

Do you object somebody else doing it? As a _distinct_ package, of
course, which will be either dropped when you feel you can maintain
it, kept as a separate package, or will be given to you, if you like
to maintain it.

Nobody wants to hijack a package from anybody (although I don't know
if one could call the creation of a distict non-interfering package a
hijack, taking into account that the GTK team does not maintain a
similar package).

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

Reply to: