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

Re: Packages still depending on GTK+ 1.2



On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:35:46 +0100
Morten Kjeldgaard <mok@bioxray.au.dk> wrote:

> I am quite willing to adopt the package  and maintain it, but I
> couldn't find
> it on the list of orphans. Maybe I didn't look hard enough? That list
> is enormous...  :-(

All the more reason to remove any package that has been orphaned since
before the Etch release before Lenny.
 
> On a side note, I already am attempting to adopt a companion for GTK+
> 1.2, namely gktglarea [1]. The modified package is on mentors and I am
> looking for
> a sponsor [2] (nudge nudge :-))

gtkglarea already has a Gtk+2.0 version, why add the 1.2 version again?
It is not a companion, it is an abandoned reverse dependency that is
dead upstream, unmaintained, unloved and unwanted.

See #492994

I covered this issue when looking at the NMU for gdis to use
libgtkgl2.0-dev instead.

I think we should remove gtkglarea, not be sponsoring its adoption.

Barry - PLEASE do not continue with the request for sponsorship of
gtkglarea. 

> > In our experience with GAMGI (http://www.gamgi.org/), GTK+ 1.2 was
> > indeed useful to prepare a preliminary package that helped to
> > convince Upstream to GTK 2.0.
> 
> Good point! 

No, not a good point at all, a very poor point. GTK+2.0 is just as
simple to use from a clean codebase. There is no need to build for
Gtk1.2 and then port to Gtk+2.0 - just go straight for 2.0.

(And yes, I have done this more than once and I can attest from real
experience that Gtk1.2 is not a sane development choice for *ANY*
project. Newly written code simply must not use Gtk1.2, it is
completely insane to do so.)

> > I am the first author of GAMGI (http://www.gamgi.org/), which
> > depends on Mesa, Expat, Freetype 2, Glib 1, Gtk 1, Gtkglarea1,
> > that's why I am so keen about compiling these libraries myself.

No - the only sane choice for new code is glib2.0, Gtk+2.0 and
libgtkgl2.0 - read the API docs, Gtk1.2 and glib1 are *NOT* for use
with newly written code.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/

Attachment: pgp9LWLDtrWv4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: