[Xfce4-commits] r23790 - xfdesktop/trunk

Brian J. Tarricone bjt23 at cornell.edu
Thu Nov 9 21:19:05 CET 2006

Hash: SHA1

On 11/9/2006 12:09 PM, Olivier Fourdan wrote:

> Can be handy, indeed, but the question that comes to mind is why do we
> always have to depends on the latest libs? I hardly see any change in
> libxfcegui4, libxfce4util, etc .between RC1 and RC2 for example, so why
> add a dependency on the micro version?

Beacuse it's safer for us with regard to bug reports.  If we *know* that
everyone who compiles from source is running the actual released
version, and not some mix of versions, it eliminates uncertainty and
extra work for us.  I know I don't want to spend an hour or so trying to
figure out a bug filed against RC2 only to find later that it was a bug
in the RC1 version of libxfcegui4 that was fixed for RC2, but for one
reason or the other, the user didn't upgrade.

Sure, there are cases when the libs don't change much (or at all)
between releases, but it's easier on the release manager not to have to
go through all the changelogs to figure that out.

> It makes upgrading
> from source harder as ppl have to carefully check for inter-dependency
> between packages...

They should use one of the many scripts that have been posted to the ML
over the last year or so to do their upgrades automatically.  Hell, even
I do that now when I want to do a full Xfce update from SVN.  (This
reminds me, I wanted to add tag support to my SVN updater script so
people can check out a specific tag...)

Or they can use the GUI installer.

Or we should provide a simple script that uses wget to fetch all the
dependencies and install everything.

Really, regardless of whether or not we bump each version requirement,
downloading each individual tarball (14 of them in a reasonable install)
and compiling them manually is for people with way too much time on
their hands (or for packagers ^_~).


Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)


More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list