On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 11:58 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le samedi 12 juin 2010 à 16:55 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit : > > And you're telling me that your decision on keeping a GTK+ 2.x version > > is based on one distributor's dubious decision? GNOME 3.x will be > > based > > on GTK+ 3.x. > > Hey Bastien, > > We wouldn't be the first distribution to work on a GNOME version not > being the most recent one for a cycle, that's a distribution choice and > I'm not sure why it would be "dubious"? > > Take in account that some distributions out there are available and used > and without gtk3 and will keep being used for a while (Debian, OpenSuse, > RHEL, Ubuntu LTS, etc). It's reasonable for software writers to support > having their new version to still build on those distribution to reach > those users, why would you require everybody to drop gtk2 support?
That's not a decision for the software writers to make when their code is in the GNOME release. And I'm saying they'd be better off maintaining separate branches if they want to keep a GTK+ 2.x version. I don't see how that's a different problem from GNOME as a whole using a newer glib and pushing modules to use the new functionality. If OO.o or Firefox are blockers, where's the push to get those building against GTK+ 3.x? Cheers _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
