On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 22:55 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > >> > >>> Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason > >>> to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps. > >>> However I'm still waiting for the explanation why it is on that list. > >>> (I don't mind if it's masked for a good reason, but I need to know > >>> that reason). > >>> > >> There is no immediate reason, of course. However, gtk+-1 and glib-1 > >> will be removed as soon after the big cleanup as is feasible, and > >> sylpheed-clasws-1.x is a gtk+-1 app, and therefore must go as well. I > >> didn't generate the list, but my understanding was that it was intended > >> to include all packages with a hard dep on gtk+-1, in addition to gnome > >> 1.x. > >> > > > > Gtk1 actually is broken for --as-needed. It's linking is broken thanks to a > > libtool which refuses to link against a non-installed libgdk. > > > > > I think gtk+-1.2.10-r12 solved this problem. > > Hope you guys aren't seriously considering dropping gtk+1. As long as we > have packages that depend on it (packages that has nothing to do with > gnome herd/team), gtk+1 should stay in the tree. >
We (gnome) are not going to maintain gtk+-1. We would very much prefer it get removed. If some other person or group wants to maintain it, I guess it's fine with me; it will only cause Jakub and company headaches for re-assigning all the bugs that mistakenly get assigned to gnome. Note that maintaining it basically means being upstream, as there is no upstream for it. Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
