On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 20:42 -0500, Josh Sled wrote: > On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 12:58 +0100, Andreas Köhler wrote: > > currently the code base depends on GLib >= 2.4, Pango >= 1.6 and GTK+ >= > > 2.4. I would like to propose higher base versions, at least for GLib, > > better for all three of them. > [deletia] > > There might be other reasons, like removing the burden to check whether > > a GLib/Gtk 2.6 feature is worth single-casing it. What do you think? > > Yeah, we should treat them as a triple...
Agreed. > Assuming we get 2.2 out the door in April, that means the 6 month > dependency window is October 2006 ... which is about when Ubuntu, > Mandriva and Fedora Core last released ... Suse was in December, and > Debian just doesn't work that way. > > In any case, gtk 2.8 seems acceptable, and gtk+-2.10 is almost in there > (except for Suse). > > So, should we go to 2.6, or 2.8? I say 2.8. RHEL4 users have > gnucash-2.0.4 to get them by, and we're not really helping them by > restricting ourselves to 2.6 if they're still on 2.4. I think we should migrate to at least 2.6 so that we can support a win32 release, eliminate the cloned glib 2.6 code in lib/glib26, and remove the code that's conditionally compiled for pre/post glib26 and gtk26. If we're not using any new-in-gtk-2.8 features I don't see any need to bump the dependency that high. If we are using 2.8 features, I have no problem bumping the dependency given the timing windows mentioned above. David _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel