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

Re: ping for gtk+extra2 removal - implications for libgtkada2 and gpsim

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:31:17 +0200
Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:

> Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/05/msg00627.html
> >
> > 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 Gtk3.0.
> libgtkada2's upstream includes a copy of gtk+extra2; I don't know how
> up to date this bundled version is. 

It appears to be almost identical to the latest upstream release except
that trailing whitespace has been removed from various files.

*NONE* of the imminent build failures have been fixed AFAICT.

Try building it with -DGTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED=1 set.

> 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.

OK, there is a bug report already asking for libgtkada to not
build-depend on gtk+extra2 (#534872) but I don't see how using an
embedded copy is going to solve the problem.

The embedded copy is just going to break in precisely the same way as
the copy packaged as gtk+extra2. There hasn't been an upstream release
for years, so it is the same code and will FTFS in precisely the same

libgtkada2 is still going to have to disable the embedded copy of
gtkextra and remove binary packages that would have provided code
based upon it.

I'm seeking removal of gtk+extra2 *principally* because it will FTBFS in
a way that cannot be easily fixed - the embedded copy in libgtkada2 will
suffer precisely the same problem because upstream for gtkextra is
long dead.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgp6sk9EMAqUz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: