New minimum requirement of GTK+2/GLIB for Xarchiver
enrico.troeger at uvena.de
Sat Aug 5 00:47:11 CEST 2006
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:03:22 +0200, "Giuseppe Torelli"
<colossus73 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/4/06, timystery at arcor.de <timystery at arcor.de> wrote:
> > What prevents authors from respecting the system configuration of
> > other people and not asking why they like to stick to the versions
> > their distribution provides?
> Asking is not a sin; a guy asked me to remove the GLIB 2.8 dependancy
> and I accomplished his request because I could do that thanks to
> Jean-François Wauthy who provided the code.
> By the way:
> What prevents distributors to upgrade to newer version of such
> important APIs as GTK+2 if it is stable?
You don't the Debian way. One has to separate between stable software
(which GTK 2.10 might be) and a stable distribution. The Debian stable
distribution takes some stable software and puts it together with the
attention to the cooperation of the software packages. If they all work
fine together, then you can call it stable. This is important,
especially for business.
I like Debian Sarge(stable) very much because it just works. All is
working fine. But sometimes I like to have some more current software,
like Xfce4.4(including xarchiver, you know I like it). And upgrading
GTK the Debian way is a bit complicated, especially upgrading to GTK
2.10 since it is not ABI compatible.
I also know, that it is my problem if I use old libraries and want to
run new software that requires newer versions of some libs.
_But_ in the case if g_mkdir_with_parents() the alternative to keep
compatibility was so easy that I think increasing the requirement of
GTK is really not necessary.
Therefore, I really appreciate that you reverted the changes in SVN.
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.key
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Xfce4-dev