Hi, I'm sorry I didn't follow up to earlier mails about cdebconf patches, haven't been able to process enough other requests… Regis Boudin <email@example.com> (2016-01-10): > I just pushed a couple of patches for cdebconf-gtk. Besides removing > conditional code to handle old versions of glib, the main change is > for the display of text in the banner, done directly with cairo, thus > removing the last bit of deprecated GDK code. I believe I've > reproduced the same behaviour ; but if you notice something different > I might have missed, please shout. IIRC we mostly use this for things like rescue mode, did you check this with various languages/fonts (esp. CJK)? > The next patch could be the one attached. It makes it possible to > chose at configure time to compile for either GTK+2 or GTK+3, and in > this version compiles the udeb for GTK+2, and the deb for GTK+3. Great, I suppose this totally obsoletes my pu/gtk3 branch then. I'm not totally convinced by building one with gtk2 and the other with gtk3 though. Some things which come to mind for a gtk3 switch in d-i: - we need theming - we need to check theme=dark has some equivalent - we now need to check that ctrl-+/- still works - we need to update the freeze hints - we need to make sure there are no uninstallable udebs; this used to be the case, that was solved a few times, but we now have a bogus dependency on libepoxy0 (#788703). - [ what am I forgetting? ] Once everything is ready I think switching both cdebconf deb/udeb to gtk3 at the same time would make more sense. (OTOH getting some gtk3 testing through the deb would be nice; but I'm not sure how common that is, and how useful that'll be to test it from outside d-i.) > Unfortunately the #if in the code are rather ugly ; but my attempts at > making it cleaner ended with something even less readable, so I left > them that way. And there's only 6 occurrences, so it's not that bad. Those are fine with me. > Any thought about whether I should merge this patch ? If yes, about > enabling GTK+3 for the deb ? The src/modules/frontend/gtk/Makefile.in changes look like something that might have been needed during development, but that shouldn't be needed anymore now that we have a clean patch? For configure.ac, I think I'd prefer if we could align things a bit to get better readability (but that's entirely subjective, and not a reason not to merge the patch in its current state). I've tweaked this part of your diff to show what I mean: > --- a/configure.ac > +++ b/configure.ac > @@ -148,15 +148,18 @@ if test -z "$FRONTEND_MODULES"; then > PKG_CHECK_EXISTS([slang], [FRONTEND_MODULES="$FRONTEND_MODULES slang"], [AC_MSG_WARN([cannot build Slang frontend])]) > fi > > +FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD="" > for frontend in $FRONTEND_MODULES; do > case $frontend in > - gtk) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([GTK_X11],[glib-2.0 >= 2.31 gtk+-x11-2.0 >= 2.24 pango gdk-pixbuf-2.0]);; > - ncurses) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([NCURSES],[ncurses]);; > - newt) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([NEWT],[libnewt slang]);; > - slang) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([SLANG],[slang]);; > - *);; > + gtk|gtk2) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([GTK_X11],[glib-2.0 >= 2.31 gtk+-x11-2.0 >= 2.24 pango gdk-pixbuf-2.0], > + [FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD="$FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD gtk"]);; > + gtk3) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([GTK_X11],[glib-2.0 >= 2.31 gtk+-x11-3.0 pango gdk-pixbuf-2.0], > + [FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD="$FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD gtk"]);; > + ncurses) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([NCURSES],[ncurses], > + [FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD="$FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD ncurses"]);; > + newt) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([NEWT],[libnewt slang], > + [FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD="$FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD newt"]);; > + slang) PKG_CHECK_MODULES([SLANG],[slang], > + [FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD="$FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD slang"]);; > + *) FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD="$FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD $frontend";; > esac > done > +FRONTEND_MODULES="$FRONTEND_MODULES_BUILD" Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature