Re: Neat gtk/gdk-imlib pain
Jason Gunthorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > There are currently 72 things that link against imlib. I suspect that
> > > about half were linked with the 'old' imlib and half with the 'new' imlib.
> > That's to be expected. The current situation demands that all those
> > apps should be rebuilt everytime gtk or glib breaks compatibility.
> But they are stable releases using the stable gtk stuff - it seems crazy
> to just abandon them. I can see how you'd not want to deal with
> inter-relations between the various devel libraries, but ignoring the
> stable stuff is a Bad Idea (TM)
True. What I'm most concerned about is a clean upgrade path from the
released slink to the released potato.
I don't imagine that we'll be releasing any gtk/glib 1.1.x stuff in
potato. We'll have moved on to the stable gtk/glib 1.2.x by then, and
glib 1.0.x will be a distant memory.
> You certainly have to deal with it when you release the new stable GTK so
> you might as well work it out in the devel releases.
You are right, of course. I still don't know what to do about it though.
> Ideally the devel GTK/etc -should- co-exist with the stable stuff, if it
> doesn't then I think that is a serious problem. I can tolerate apps from
> potato breaking left and right, but old apps from slink? Bleck.
I'm becoming more convinced of the need for symbol versioning.
When are we switching to glibc 2.1 in potato? It's due to be released
in a few weeks (if that). I guess I could do some experimenting on
the ARM port...