On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 1:28 PM, <philip.chime...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM Peter Weber <peter.we...@ttyhoney.com> > wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> On Sat, 2016-07-09 at 19:06 +0000, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > I'm expecting this will become less and less of a problem as apps move >> > to Flatpak as a means of distribution. >> >> Uhuuu. I'm sorry, but this is bad. >> >> This mixes two completely different problems together, packaging and a >> toolkit. So enforcing Flatpak on distributions, developers and users >> should solve a problem with Gtk+? >> > > No, nothing about any of this proposal forces people to use Flatpak. > > The problem Emilio mentioned was, > > > some third party apps pick a dependency on the vte for GTK+ 4.2 but > don't update it for GTK+ 4.4, as then distros would need to ship an > increasing number of versions that are unlikely to get any support upstream. > > In my opinion, the expectation is that app developers who sign on to the > unstable series will see it through until the next long-term stable > release, and not abandon development while still targeting an unstable > release, leaving distros to package GTK 4.2, GTK 4.4, VTE-for-GTK-4.2, > VTE-for-GTK-4.4, etc. because apps are all stuck at different versions. > > Of course, nothing is stopping developers from doing that anyway. The same > way nothing is stopping me right now from putting this line in my app's > configure.ac: > PKG_CHECK_MODULES([APP], [gtk+-3.0 >= 3.18 gtk+-3.0 < 3.20]) > However, if I did that then any distros trying to package it would quite > rightly complain. > > I'm saying that if an app developer feels the need to do that, then they > will be better off targeting a Flatpak runtime. > > Having said all this, I'm thinking about sketching out a proposal that > doubles down on Flatpak like Jasper was suggesting. Paradoxically I think > it might seem more palatable to more people... more updates later. >
I intended my proposal as an strawman explanation that I thought was obviously silly. It wasn't a serious proposal, and I don't think it's the correct direction for the project to move in. > Regards, > Philip C > > _______________________________________________ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > -- Jasper
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
