On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:07:45AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 09:50 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit : > > > Sebastien, do you know if the development 2.9 gtk packages will be uploaded > > to > > experimental or something such ? If so, would it be meaningful to have those > > packages also include the build of the .udebs, and upload to unstable a > > version of those with the main .debs disabled ? PAckaging synergy of this > > kind > > is good to reduce workload for all involved. > > I don't intend to package GTK 2.9 right now, no. The new version change > its ABI version as described by the announcement mail: > > " > ... > * GtkFileChooser: > - Communication with backends is now asynchronous to avoid > blocking on filesystem operations. Due to the required interface > changes, the GTK+ ABI version has been bumped to 2.10.0. Third-party > filesystem backends have to be ported to the new interface, other > modules, such as theme engines, input method modules or pixbuf > loaders > have to be rebuilt so that they are installed in the right place > for GTK+ to find them. > ..." > > We have enough work with GNOME 2.14 at the moment and the "ported to the > new interface" part means it requires to go with libgnomeui 2.15 anyway > > I'm not interested to upload a GTK 2.9 variant building only the .udebs > to unstable neither
Ok, but if someone else would be packaging those to produce .udebs, you have no particular objection to uploading .debs to experimental at the same time ? Or would it make sense to build the gtk-dfb variant from the same cvs/svn repo as the rest of the gtk stuff is done, instead of a standalone snapshot outside of it ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
