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

glademm and removing gnome1/c++ libraries

Christof Petig wrote:
> There is no reason for glademm to build "depend" on libgnomemm-dev! It
> simply tests libgnomemm for existance to provide a reasonable default
> version. Since these days libgnomemm is rarely used (to say the least)
> nobody would notice a missing default version.
Thank you!  This really does help clear things up a lot.

> File a bug against glademm to remove any build dependancy on any of the
> gtk1/gnome1 libraries (the configure warnings are harmless, the
> functionality is still fully usable), I simply hestitate to remove the
> gtk1 functionality because it is still in use somewhere.
Great!  This unclogs things in Debian a lot.

> Isn't this clear enough:
> AC_MSG_CHECKING([for gnome-- 1.x version (not needed)])
>       Christof (who happens to be the glademm author)
> PS: Anybody to cc about this?

Debian's glademm maintainer -- Bradley Bell <btb@debian.org>.  He's not
really maintaining his packages right now, and seems to be "missing in
action", unfortunately.  :-P

If you are a Debian Developer (or know one) who would like to maintain
the glademm package for Debian, we could try to get Bradley to hand over
the package.

I'm also cc:ing debian-release, debian-qa, and debian-gtk-gnome.  The
original reason I was investigating this is because it's holding up the
removal of libbonobomm1.3-dev and libbonobouimm1.3-dev, which are
build-depended on by the glademm package but otherwise are unused libraries.

* could someone please NMU glademm so that its build-depends looks like
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4.0.0), libgtkmm2.0-dev
All the other build-depends are unneeded according to the author.

* Could I get a consensus on QA and gtk-gnome that libbonobouimm1.3 and
libbonobomm1.3 -- libraries for GNOME 1 which are totally unused in
unstable -- should be removed from unstable?  Could I then get some bugs
filed against ftp.debian.org for that?

Cc:ed to debian-release because that's where this all started, and
because removal of the dead bonobo packages simplifies the necessary
hints for the C++ transition significantly.

(It also has the amusing side-effect that there will be no packages in
unstable which are at higher than 'level 2' on Mike Furr's transition
page at http://people.debian.org/~mfurr/gxx/rebuild.html).

Reply to: