On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 08:03:13AM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > Jeremy Henty wrote these words on 05/13/06 07:49 CST: > > > Yes. The GTK+ team are outstandingly good at preserving backward > > compatibility. I have done many upgrades of > > GTK+-2.4.x,2.6.x,2.8.x (and also glib, atk, pango) without > > problems. I've never had to uninstall the old version and never > > had to recompile anything. > > Not to argue, but instead point out a different experience, just > recently (in the last couple of weeks), I updated a perfectly > working system (a test system that I knew I really didn't need any > longer) from GTK+ 2.8.9 to 2.8.17 and it totally hosed Evolution. > [...] > I remember also a time when the BLFS book was updated to a Glib/GTK > combination that had to be backed out because it hosed the existing > GNOME version in the book. > > So, there has been many times where folks have encountered a > different experience than what Jeremy is reporting.
Well, I don't use heavyweight stuff like GNOME, Evolution, etc., so I probably stress GTK+ much less than most Linux desktop users. Maybe that's why I've never been bitten. As long as they don't break Firefox I'm happy! I'm still sure you need never recompile applications (the GTK+ team is serious about not breaking the API, even if they sometimes break the library). And if anything breaks then just re-installing the previous version should restore everything. That's why I keep old build trees of important things like GTK+, if something breaks then then I just rerun " make install " in the old tree and it's fixed. Regards, Jeremy Henty -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
