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

Bug#967748: marked as done (slurm-llnl: depends on deprecated GTK 2)

Your message dated Mon, 14 Dec 2020 21:37:08 +0000
with message-id <[🔎] E1kovWm-0008wp-Co@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#977117: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #967748,
regarding slurm-llnl: depends on deprecated GTK 2
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

967748: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=967748
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: slurm-llnl
Severity: normal
User: pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: gtk2 oldlibs
Control: block 947713 by -1

This package has Build-Depends on GTK 2 (libgtk2.0-dev), or produces
binary packages with a Depends on GTK 2.

GTK 2 was superseded by GTK 3 in 2011 (see
<https://bugs.debian.org/947713>). It no longer receives any significant
upstream maintenance, and in particular does not get feature development
for new features like UI scaling on high-pixel-density displays (HiDPI)
and native Wayland support. GTK 3 is in maintenance mode and GTK 4 is
approaching release, so it seems like a good time to be thinking about
minimizing the amount of GTK 2 in the archive.

GTK 2 is used by some important productivity applications like GIMP, and
has also historically been a popular UI toolkit for proprietary software
that we can't change, so perhaps removing GTK 2 from Debian will never be
feasible. However, it has reached the point where a dependency on it is
a bug - not a release-critical bug, and not a bug that can necessarily
be fixed quickly, but a piece of technical debt that maintainers should
be aware of.

A porting guide is provided in the GTK 3 documentation:

Some libraries (for example libgtkspell0) expose GTK as part of their
API/ABI, in which case removing the deprecated dependency requires
breaking API/ABI. For these libraries, in many cases there will already
be a corresponding GTK 3 version (for example libgtkspell3-3-0), in which
case the GTK 2-based library should probably be deprecated or removed
itself. If there is no GTK 3 equivalent, of a GTK 2-based library,
maintainers should talk to the dependent library's upstream developers
about whether the dependent library should break API/ABI and switch
to GTK 3, or whether the dependent library should itself be deprecated
or removed.

A few packages extend GTK 2 by providing plugins (theme engines, input
methods, etc.) or themes, for example ibus and mate-themes. If these
packages deliberately support GTK 2 even though it is deprecated, and
they also support GTK 3, then it is appropriate to mark this mass-filed
bug as wontfix for now. I have tried to exclude these packages from
the mass-bug-filing, but I probably missed some of them.


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 19.05.5-2.1+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package slurm-llnl has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/977117

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing

Debian distribution maintenance software
Joerg Jaspert (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

--- End Message ---

Reply to: