[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, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 11:45 +0200, Sebastien Bacher a écrit :
> 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

If we are going to ship GNOME 2.16 in etch, we will have to rebuild all
modules, theme engines and the like for this new GTK+, and we'd better
do it as soon as possible in experimental.

Let's stop the non-issues.
It is quite clear that from a GNOME POV gtk 2.9+ is not an option at the moment.

What everybody should focus on now in this discution is the gtk udebs
(the ones with DFB backend which are needed for G-I and G-I only, at
least for the moment).

So the questions are:
- Is it OK for the GTK+GNOME team to have D-I people (and maybe with
the help of some gtk/gnome people) build some udebs for GTK
_with_the_DFB_ backend, as it is now for the 2.0.9 version?

So, in English, the main question is if the gtk/gnome people are ok
with the fact that now, the lead of developing gtk packages will be
taken by d-i people? Again, please understand this is NOT hijacking,
these should be distinct packages which have the DFB backend, not the
X one, as it is now for the packages maintained by gtk/gnome code.

- If teh answer to the previous question is yes, then would you like
to assist us in this work ? (as we don't have gtk and general library
packaging experience)

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

Reply to: