Re: More cdebconf patches
On 10/01/16 21:40, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry I didn't follow up to earlier mails about cdebconf patches,
> haven't been able to process enough other requests…
No worries. The previous patches I pushed we rather trivial.
> Regis Boudin <regis@boudin.name> (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)?
Hmm, I didn't test that far. I did follow the GTK doc about migrating
away from gdk_draw_layout(), and use pango_cairo_show_layout() instead,
so it should be fine.
>> 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
That one probably won't work, seeing that it modifies a file that's not
used by gtk3.
> - 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.)
Yeah, having the possibility to do some tests through the deb, and
making sure both versions compile was what I had on my mind. I also did
it to check it worked.
At the very least we make it possible to build for gtk3 and look at
dependencies, run tests, look at themes, etc
>> 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?
These were indeed added by me. In theory I'd have liked to keep them for
GTK2 but not for GTK3.
> 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:
Looks good. I was thinking about doing something like that.
Anyway, I've cleaned things a bit and will push a patch that builds all
for gtk2.
Thanks for the feedback.
Regis
Reply to: