[clc-devel] GNOME 2.6 plans
After committing those last slew of updates to the GNOME ports, I'm now starting to build the GNOME 2.5 branch from scratch (getting ready for GNOME 2.6). I'd rather not worry about updates to the GNOME 2.4 branch now, since I'm not going to have it installed anymore. I hope someone will volunteer to send/commit any critical updates until GNOME 2.6 is released. Per: I would like to time things so GNOME 2.6 is in the ports tree soon after GTK+ 2.4 is in opt (not like last time when I committed everything too soon ;-). This will be simple if you're planning on updating GTK+ in a CRUX release (as opposed to in between CRUX releases). I guess that would be good since things will need to be recompiled against the new GTK+? Anyway, if you keep me informed I'll try and time everything just right. :-) -- Robert McMeekin <rrm3@rrm3.org>
Robert McMeekin wrote:
After committing those last slew of updates to the GNOME ports, I'm now starting to build the GNOME 2.5 branch from scratch (getting ready for GNOME 2.6). I'd rather not worry about updates to the GNOME 2.4 branch now, since I'm not going to have it installed anymore. I hope someone will volunteer to send/commit any critical updates until GNOME 2.6 is released.
Per: I would like to time things so GNOME 2.6 is in the ports tree soon after GTK+ 2.4 is in opt (not like last time when I committed everything too soon ;-). This will be simple if you're planning on updating GTK+ in a CRUX release (as opposed to in between CRUX releases). I guess that would be good since things will need to be recompiled against the new GTK+? Anyway, if you keep me informed I'll try and time everything just right. :-)
Hey, Robert. Great work. What's new in 2.6? And are there screenshots of it? Thanks Victor
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 09:33, Victor wrote:
Hey, Robert. Great work. What's new in 2.6? And are there screenshots of it?
Thanks. In 2.6 we can look forward to more dependencies and a big switch to GTK+ 2.4 (which is bound to introduce some new bugs ;). I'll put up some screen shots sooner or later, but so far 2.6 looks remarkably similar to 2.4. :-/ But seriously when I get a little bit more organized I'll try and put together a nice email to the list about how great 2.6 is. :-) -- Robert McMeekin <rrm3@rrm3.org>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Robert McMeekin wrote: [...]
Per: I would like to time things so GNOME 2.6 is in the ports tree soon after GTK+ 2.4 is in opt (not like last time when I committed everything too soon ;-). This will be simple if you're planning on updating GTK+ in a CRUX release (as opposed to in between CRUX releases). I guess that would be good since things will need to be recompiled against the new GTK+?
Yep, that sounds good. I haven't looked at gtk 2.3/2.4 yet, so I don't know how compatible it is with gtk 2.2, but I assume gtk apps will need to be rebuilt against the new version. If that assumption is correct I will not upgrade to gtk 2.4 in the crux 1.3 stable tree. Instead gtk 2.4 will have to wait until CRUX 2.0 (if 2.4-final has been released by then).
Anyway, if you keep me informed I'll try and time everything just right. :-)
Sure, I will do my best. All I know at the moment is that CRUX 2.0 is still some time away. For the past month and for some time to come I'm working Monday-Thursday in a different city so CRUX development is a bit slow. I fly back home over the weekends and try to catch up ;) /Per
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Per Liden wrote: [...]
Yep, that sounds good. I haven't looked at gtk 2.3/2.4 yet, so I don't know how compatible it is with gtk 2.2, but I assume gtk apps will need to be rebuilt against the new version. If that assumption is correct I will not upgrade to gtk 2.4 in the crux 1.3 stable tree. Instead gtk 2.4 will have to wait until CRUX 2.0 (if 2.4-final has been released by then).
Hmm, according to http://gtk.org/plan/ the 2.3/2.4 releases are source and binary compatible with 2.0/2.2. /Per
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 09:39, Per Liden wrote:
Hmm, according to http://gtk.org/plan/ the 2.3/2.4 releases are source and binary compatible with 2.0/2.2.
Okay. I'll be on my toes then. :-) -- Robert McMeekin <rrm3@rrm3.org>
participants (3)
-
Per Liden -
Robert McMeekin -
Victor