On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Simon McVittie
<simon.mcvit...@collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 11:14 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Which would mean nothing called "gtk+" in the modulesets? Why not
>> > keep
>> > either gtk 3.x or gtk 4.x with that name?
>> >
>> > I'd expect the "gtk+" module to build GTK+ 4.x ("the latest").
>>
>> I have no strong opinion on this. Not having gtk+ in the moduleset
>> doesn't seem like a big deal to me. The + in the name is a bit
>> awkward, tbh.
>
> Losing the gtk+ module would mean third-party modulesets are forced to
> make a decision on whether they want gtk3 or gtk4, which seems like it
> might be desirable?I ended up naming the modules gtk+-3 and gtk+, and I switched all existing dependencies in the moduleset to gtk+-3 for now. 3rd party modules will still have to make a decision. We can change the name to gtk+-4 if that is preferred. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
