|

»

»

Gnu - PSPP - Dev

Move to Gtk+2.16 ?

View: New views

8 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	Move to Gtk+2.16 ? by John Darrington-3 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message How do people feel about depending on Gtk+-2.16 or greater? From what I'm discovering with the GtkBuilder issues, it's going to be very hard to support both < 2.16 and >= 2.18 J' -- PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key. _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
	Re: Move to Gtk+2.16 ? by Michel Boaventura-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On windows the gtk used is 2.16.6, so at least to me, it is ok. Michel _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
	Re: Move to Gtk+2.16 ? by Ben Pfaff :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message John Darrington <john@...> writes: > How do people feel about depending on Gtk+-2.16 or greater? > > From what I'm discovering with the GtkBuilder issues, it's going > to be very hard to support both < 2.16 and >= 2.18 Debian lenny has GTK+ 2.12, so I guess we'd have to require users to upgrade at least their GTK+ packages to Debian "testing". (Or install a backport from backports.org, but I don't see one for libgtk2.0-0.) -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
	Re: Move to Gtk+2.16 ? by John Darrington-3 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:22:05PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: John Darrington <john@...> writes: > How do people feel about depending on Gtk+-2.16 or greater? > > From what I'm discovering with the GtkBuilder issues, it's going > to be very hard to support both < 2.16 and >= 2.18 Debian lenny has GTK+ 2.12, so I guess we'd have to require users to upgrade at least their GTK+ packages to Debian "testing". (Or install a backport from backports.org, but I don't see one for libgtk2.0-0.) I guess then the best thing to do is to move master to 2.18 and keep a pre-2.16 branch for a while. J' -- PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key. _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
	Re: Move to Gtk+2.16 ? by Ben Pfaff :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message John Darrington <john@...> writes: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:22:05PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > John Darrington <john@...> writes: > > > How do people feel about depending on Gtk+-2.16 or greater? > > > > From what I'm discovering with the GtkBuilder issues, it's going > > to be very hard to support both < 2.16 and >= 2.18 > > Debian lenny has GTK+ 2.12, so I guess we'd have to require users > to upgrade at least their GTK+ packages to Debian "testing". (Or > install a backport from backports.org, but I don't see one for > libgtk2.0-0.) > > I guess then the best thing to do is to move master to 2.18 and keep > a pre-2.16 branch for a while. That's a pain. I'll figure out how hard it would be to build GTK+ 2.18 for backports.org. If it's not too hard, then we could just advise users to update their GTK+ version. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
	Re: Move to Gtk+2.16 ? by Ben Pfaff :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Ben Pfaff <blp@...> writes: > I'll figure out how hard it would be to build GTK+ 2.18 for > backports.org. If it's not too hard, then we could just advise > users to update their GTK+ version. It seems that it may not be that hard. I'm going to give it a shot, anyhow, at least asking Debian's Glib and GTK+ library maintainers whether they know of a reason that it's a bad idea. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
	Re: Move to Gtk+2.16 ? by John Darrington-3 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Looking at recent bug reports (at bug-gnu-pspp@... and on 3rd party forums such as Debian) it seems that this issue is becoming urgent. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to start a Gtk+-2.18 branch so as to avoid falling too far behind on this problem. J' On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:33:17PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: Ben Pfaff <blp@...> writes: > I'll figure out how hard it would be to build GTK+ 2.18 for > backports.org. If it's not too hard, then we could just advise > users to update their GTK+ version. It seems that it may not be that hard. I'm going to give it a shot, anyhow, at least asking Debian's Glib and GTK+ library maintainers whether they know of a reason that it's a bad idea. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev -- PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key. _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
	Re: Move to Gtk+2.16 ? by Jason Stover-3 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Sounds OK to me. On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 06:04:34AM +0000, John Darrington wrote: > Looking at recent bug reports (at bug-gnu-pspp@... and on 3rd > party forums such as Debian) it seems that this issue is becoming > urgent. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to start a > Gtk+-2.18 branch so as to avoid falling too far behind on this > problem. > > J' > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:33:17PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Ben Pfaff <blp@...> writes: > > I'll figure out how hard it would be to build GTK+ 2.18 for > > backports.org. If it's not too hard, then we could just advise > > users to update their GTK+ version. > > It seems that it may not be that hard. I'm going to give it a > shot, anyhow, at least asking Debian's Glib and GTK+ library > maintainers whether they know of a reason that it's a bad idea. > -- > Ben Pfaff > http://benpfaff.org > > > _______________________________________________ > pspp-dev mailing list > pspp-dev@... > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev > > -- > PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 > fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 > See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key. > > > _______________________________________________ > pspp-dev mailing list > pspp-dev@... > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@... http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev