Control: severy 750001 normal thanks Hi,
wxGlade does not support wxWidgets 3 because upstream says so: https://bitbucket.org/agriggio/wxglade/commits/acbfabfba67bc795a6ccecaabda933ecb0d0f63d#chg-wxglade.py For instance it adds wxTHICK_FRAME by itself, in the .wxg and the generated .cpp. Can you add to your list the packages that depend on wxPython (apt-rdepends counts 70) to get a clearer understanding of the situation. Please don't change the severity of this bug until then. You'll get a bug dependency on wxglade, I'll be able to depend on it. Good news about MXE. I think you don't have to worry about bugs on 2.8 - if upstream doesn't want to fix bugs, you could recommend (not enforce) impacted people to upgrade? - Sylvain On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:12:47AM +0100, Olly Betts wrote: > # blocks the on-going wxwidgets3.0 transition > severity 750001 serious > thanks > > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 04:23:12PM +0200, b...@debian.org wrote: > > I (as upstream) do not wish to update to wxWidgets2.8 yet because > > wxGlade (used to generate the *_Base.cpp files) doesn't support it, > > and because MXE (for the Windows cross-build) doesn't seem to either > > (though it builds 2.9 already). > > In what way does wxGlade not handle the patched code? The changes > I made in that area were just updating things which were deprecated in > 2.8 and have been removed in 3.0; if wxGlade doesn't handle them, it's > likely broken for wx2.8 too. > > As upstream, you don't have to drop wx2.8 support to add wx3.0 support > (the patch I sent should work with both), but FWIW MXE appears to > support wx3.0: > > https://github.com/mxe/mxe/blob/master/src/wxwidgets.mk > > > So while such a move is planned, it's too early to make it. > > Please consider supporting both 2.8 and 3.0 in Jessie (as with 2.6/2.8). > > It will also make backports easier. > > It's really not feasible to support two different wx releases in Jessie > - there are only two people in the wx team who have been at all active > in recent times. Since there's no upstream interest in wx2.8, and a > number of packages actually require wx3.0, wx3.0 is the sane choice. > > Having 2.6 and 2.8 in a release together didn't work out well - > bugs in 2.6 just piled up because upstream weren't interested. That's > not what we want in a large and complex library package. > > > Last, I (as package maintainer) would object to Debian diverging from > > upstream, especially with forwarded:no patches, so no NMU please. > > Since you are upstream maintainer, we can now consider the patch as > forwarded. > > The patch I sent doesn't break compatibility with wx2.8 - I did a test > build to verify this. > > Note that in wx2.8 wxTHICK_FRAME is just defined to wxRESIZE_BORDER, so > changing wxRESIZE_BORDER|wxTHICK_FRAME to wxRESIZE_BORDER makes no > different to behaviour. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
