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

Re: [pio-develop] New "translation update" for pioneers



Op 26-10-10 23:29, Roland Clobus schreef:
>>>> +#if (GTK_MAJOR_VERSION <= 2 && GTK_MINOR_VERSION <= 18 &&
>>>> GTK_MICRO_VERSION < 2)
>>>>         GtkWidget *button;
>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>> That check seems broken, it will consider, say, 2.12.12 as fixed.

...

>> Roland, I think it's best if I make any required changes for this Debian
>> package, and we include them in the next release (which will not go into
>> squeeze) separately. What do you think?
> 
> The patch for gtkbugs.c was included because Debian Testing (at some
> time Debian Stable) includes a version that is new enough that this code
> doesn't need to be present. The #if part can be removed from the patch,
> it should work anyway.

Indeed, 2.20 is in testing now. However, users may only upgrade pioneers
if they want to, and not libgtk+. According to the package, this is
allowed; it requires 2.12.0. So if we don't do a run-time check, I need
to manually demand 2.18.2 or larger.

I can do this; the question remains if these changes are small enough to
be allowed a freeze exception (which is why debian-release is still in
the loop; sorry for the noise).

> I still think 0.12.3.1 could be included in the new Debian Stable
> release. The translations are better, and a bug that renders half the
> themes unusable is fixed.

Yes, I will push those things in anyway. The question is if I should do
this as a Debian-specific patch to 0.12.3, or by packaging 0.12.3.1. I'd
like an answer from the release team to that.

> A few hours ago I announced a string freeze for 0.12.4, so the next
> release of Debian can include that updated version, I hope the new
> Debian Stable can include 0.12.3.1.

Indeed. The translation and theme fixes should go into squeeze
(currently testing); 0.12.4 will go into wheezy (testing after the
release of squeeze).

Thanks,
Bas Wijnen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: