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

PROPOSAL: gtk-gnome coordination team

After some discussion on IRC, I believe I have a proposal.

The Problem:

Our GTK maintainer has to compile and upload new GTK packages every time a
new version comes out.  This is because maintainers of GTK-using packages
typically find that their upstream authors are using the latest version
(and have probably, irritatingly, chosen to use a feature which requires
it, because they read about it in the release notes and thought it was

This means that our archive is full of a large number of GTK applications
compiled against different versions.  The problem becomes especially
serious when other libraries themselves depend on development versions of
libraries, and we hit a limitation in the way the dynamic linker works.

The proposed solution:

A new mailing list, debian-gtk-gnome, which coordinates
releases. All
maintainers of packages linking to gtk or gnome libraries would be
encouraged to subscribe to this list.

On this list, developers would announce and explain that the latest
upstream of gfoobar required libgtk1.1.456. The list would then make a
decision about the next release of libgtk to put into unstable, and it
would arrange that all gtk-dependent pacakges recompile with prerelease
versions of this package.  It would then simultaneously upload new
versions of every app, along with the new libs.

The mechanics of this would be up to the list.  A fertile possibility
would be to have a central CVS tree used by all the gtk-app developers,
allowing anyone to correct minor errors in the others' files, with
automated build-all scripts.


|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |

Reply to: