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

Re: Gtk 2.10 availability

On Wednesday 20 September 2006 11:00, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Gtk 2.10.1-1 was uploaded yesterday to experimental (and 2.10.3-1
> after dinstall).  This new upstream release is not compatible with
> modules built with prior Gtk versions.  Some longstanding issues have
> been addressed in this release as well.
> Here's a quick summary of the important news with emphasis on the
> changes required or not in the installer.

Or, considering the length of the mail, not so quick ;-)

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to write this mail. I see no 
problematic issues for the switch to 2.6.10.

The main question I guess is: is there more information on if/when 2.10 
could migrate to unstable? What is the chance that it will make Etch?

Main reason I ask is that there are a few RC issues in the graphical 
installer (not crashes, but important presentation issues) that should be 
solved in 2.10, but are still present in 2.8.
If the chance that 2.10 will _not_ make Etch is high, then we need to try 
to find fixes for these issues in 2.8. If that chance is negligible, we 
can concentrate on testing with the 2.10 libs.

> To my knowledge, no package is built against libgtk-directfb-2.0-dev,
> cdebconf is the only package built against libgtk+2.0-directfb-dev
> (which is the flavor of Gtk maintained by debian-boot@), and hence no
> package is affected by this change, but it should taken care of when
> switching cdebconf to build against libgtk-directfb-2.0-dev.

No, cdebconf in unstable is built against libgtk-directfb-2.0-dev:
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 5.0.22), po-debconf (>= 0.5.0), 
libslang2-dev, libnewt-dev, libtextwrap-dev (>= 0.1-5), 
libdebian-installer4-dev (>= 0.41) | libdebian-installer-dev, 
libgtk-directfb-2.0-dev (>= 2.8.18-5)

libgtk+2.0-directfb-dev is deprecated and is only used in Beta 3 as that 
is still based on 2.0.9 libs.

So we do need to make this change.


Attachment: pgpjHOajsOrac.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: