Re: ping for gtk+extra2 removal - implications for libgtkada2 and gpsim
Neil Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> One month on and I've heard nothing from the other maintainers with
> packages that depend on gtk+extra2 or from anyone else interested in
> porting gtk+extra2 (or even just GtkSheet) to Gtk3.0.
> I therefore propose to seek pre-emptive removal of quicklist,
> libgtkada2, gpsim and gtk+extra2 if I've still not had any cause to
> reconsider the problems before DebConf9.
> I'll file RM: RoM bugs against quicklist and gtk+extra2 and RM: RoQA
> for libgtkada and gpsim - unless anyone comes up with a good reason not
> to do so - at DebConf9. I don't think I'll bother orphaning quicklist
> or gtk+extra2 as an interim step, just skip to removal.
> FTR: gpsim already has an RC bug #520005 (FTBFS)
>>From only a cursory glance at the libgtkada2 sources, I would have
> thought that the package could build without gtk+extra2 (with some
> patches to the upstream) but whether it can be ported to Gtk3.0 is
> another matter. I may start with an ordinary bug against libgtkada2 and
> see if there is interest in rebuilding it without gtk+extra2 and with
libgtkada2's upstream includes a copy of gtk+extra2; I don't know how up
to date this bundled version is. That's why, for the last uploads, I've
built libgtkada2 against the packaged gtk+extra instead of the bundled
copy. It is quite easy for me to revert that, so please do not ask for
removal of libgtkada2 just yet.