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

Re: Considerations for GTK1 removal from Debian



On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:47:46 +0200
"Carl Fürstenberg" <azatoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/07, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> > Le samedi 11 août 2007 à 06:57 +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui)
> > a écrit :
> > > You are saying to the mantainers who if they doesnt work
> > > on a GTK+ 1.2 -> 2.0 port their packages will go out of debian
> > > now?
> >
> > I don't have any power to remove their packages from Debian, but I
> > urge every maintainer of a package depending on GTK+ 1.2 to either
> > start the work on GTK2 porting it or consider its removal. And now
> > is more than the time to start this.

Now is well overdue. How many packages that are still using gtk1 are:
1. alive upstream and
2. not already replaced by a gtk2 version?

I thought gnucash was the last.

> Just because I had nothing to do, I generated a list on the wiki on
> all packages that depends on gtk+ 1.2; see:
> http://wiki.debian.org/GTK+_1%2e2_leftovers
> 
> /Carl Fürstenberg <azatoth@gmail.com>

That's quite useful, Carl, thanks. (Pity it isn't alphabetical order
but that's tricky to do on a wiki page.) A link to the upstream
location of each one (via debian/copyright) is the next stage.

Removing xmms will decimate that list. The gtk1 version of sylpheed
should probably be removed too - the gtk2 and claws-gtk2 versions are
well established now. Remove the packages that are only dependencies of
others in the list and we are only talking of maybe 40 packages - out
of 18,000.

Could I just note that quicklist does have a gtk2 version in
experimental (added to wiki). It's not finished yet so if anyone is
looking for some upstream work, I could do with a hand to finish
it . . . 

Personally, I think it is possible and desirable for Debian to remove
gtk1 in time for Lenny. However, I also cannot really argue against:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/06/msg00204.html
Lack of an active upstream is not sufficient sole cause to remove a
package from Debian but retaining old code for the sake of
sentimentality is crazy. There has been plenty of time to complete the
port to GTK2. Doesn't there come a point where even stable gtk1 code
would become undesirable in Debian, just because gtk1 is so old?

Yes, I like quicklist (I've already agreed with the previous Debian
maintainer to take over maintaining the new version) and I would like
to be able to finish it before Lenny but let me say here and now: I
have no problem asking for the removal of the old quicklist so that
Lenny could be released without gtk1. I'll happily put the gtk2 version
of quicklist back through the NEW queue once it is ready. If there is a
consensus that releasing Lenny without gtk1 is an achievable goal, I'll
file the removal bug for the old version of quicklist myself.

The gtk1-dependent code still in Debian is already dead and anyone
wanting to start a port now is going to have to rewrite most of the UI
anyway so it may as well simply be a completely new package.

If anyone wants *any* packages on
http://wiki.debian.org/GTK+_1%2e2_leftovers
to remain in Debian after Lenny, then do as I have done and take over
the upstream maintenance of the old code and do the port yourself.
Nobody else is apparently willing to do it.

With apache1 being removed, isn't it the right time to remove gtk1
(and glib1.2) as well?

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpGbFgTPqDh3.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: