From: Christopher A. <chr...@we...> - 2002-02-26 12:25:47
|
I alrady sent this to the list, but somehow it didn't get through... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:26:39 +0100 (CET) From: Christopher Arndt <chr...@we...> To: Vincent Lefevre <vi...@vi...> Cc: rox-devel list <rox...@li...> Subject: Re: [rox-devel] Gtk+-2.0 On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 16:30:36 +0000, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > Gtk 1.3.15 is out, and 2.0 is due in a few days. So, the question is, do > > we continue to support both versions, or just 2.0? > > If 2.0 is new, I think you should wait a few weeks before dropping 1.2. I throw in my vote for conservatism here: I think, stable versions of ROX should not require GTK+ 2.0 before at least two or three Distributions come with GTK+ 2.0 already installed by default. For development versions of ROX, I think, it maybe okay to require GTK+ 2.0 but then we should provide (at least pointers to) GTK+ 2.0 packages that can be installed alongside GTK+ 1.2.x. But if the time between stable versions is so long as with the last two, this may be also be dissatisfactory. Maybe one could define conditional compiles for the things that rely on GTK+ 2.0 so that users can still compile newer versions of ROX with GTK+ 1.2.x (but miss the features that build on GTK+ 2.0). I don't know if this would be too complicated, though. Just MHO -- ... cause we all have wings, but some of us don't know why! (INXS) Christopher Arndt [t] +49 173-9542751 system administration [w] www.chrisarndt.de & linux training [e] chr...@we... |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2002-02-26 13:09:07
|
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 01:23:34PM +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 16:30:36 +0000, Thomas Leonard wrote: > > > Gtk 1.3.15 is out, and 2.0 is due in a few days. So, the question is, do > > > we continue to support both versions, or just 2.0? > > > > If 2.0 is new, I think you should wait a few weeks before dropping 1.2. > > I throw in my vote for conservatism here: > > I think, stable versions of ROX should not require GTK+ 2.0 before at > least two or three Distributions come with GTK+ 2.0 already installed by > default. Certainly. We won't require 2.0 to run a stable version for about a year (and all distros will upgrade long before then, because it's needed for GNOME 2). > For development versions of ROX, I think, it maybe okay to require GTK+ > 2.0 but then we should provide (at least pointers to) GTK+ 2.0 packages > that can be installed alongside GTK+ 1.2.x. All Gtk+ 2.0 packages install alongside 1.2 without any problems. Even the headers don't conflict. The only exception is the python bindings, so I'm not planning to move the python stuff over for quite a while. > But if the time between stable versions is so long as with the last two, > this may be also be dissatisfactory. If people just want 1.2 with Gtk+-2.0, they can already recompile with --with-gtk2. We could release 1.2.1 where this is the default, still falling back to Gtk+-1.2. > Maybe one could define conditional compiles for the things that rely > on GTK+ 2.0 so that users can still compile newer versions of ROX with > GTK+ 1.2.x (but miss the features that build on GTK+ 2.0). I don't know if > this would be too complicated, though. This is what we've been doing for the last six months, but it's getting messy. If we're going to fully change over some time this devel series, I'd rather do it sooner than later... the alternative is to have a very short series where we don't change much for 1.4, but I think we'll end up not doing a lot of stuff people want :-( -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |
From: <sal...@ya...> - 2002-02-26 14:43:41
|
--- Christopher Arndt <chr...@we...> wrote: > I throw in my vote for conservatism here: > > I think, stable versions of ROX should not require > GTK+ 2.0 before at > least two or three Distributions come with GTK+ 2.0 > already installed by > default. > > For development versions of ROX, I think, it maybe > okay to require GTK+ > 2.0 but then we should provide (at least pointers > to) GTK+ 2.0 packages > that can be installed alongside GTK+ 1.2.x. But if > the time between stable > versions is so long as with the last two, this may > be also be > dissatisfactory. > My 2 cents: (Or, ehm, 1.4 pence?) - since ROX 1.4 will not be out for another few months, by which time Ximian GNOME 2 will hopefully be out, it should be alright to start phasing out GTK 1.2 support in ROX (CVS is already in the 1.3 series anyway). Worse come to worse links can be provided to Ximian and volunteers can recompile Rawhide and Cooker packages for GTK2. Debian GTK2 packages are already in Woody/Sid IMHO. Regards, Michel Salim __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com |