Le dimanche 22 juillet 2012 à 16:09 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit : > I disagree. I have a number of upstream projects which started with > early versions of GTK2 which I ported to more recent versions and in > which I then implemented support for the DISABLE_DEPRECATED macros of > glib2.0 and gtk+2.0 such that the current versions of these packages in > unstable build fine against the current gtk+-2.0 with > DISABLE_DEPRECATED set - yet none of these will build against gtk+3.0. > > Some of my upstreams would have to be complete rewrites to port to > gtk3, at which point I start considering if it would be easier to > rewrite for something other than gtk or abandon the upstream.
Just because an application doesn’t build doesn’t mean you have to completely rewrite it. http://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/stable/ch24s02.html > Gtk2 was a step forward from gtk1. Gtk3 is a failure IMHO. Unless third > party apps buy into the entire shell monoculture (via a rewrite), gtk3 > makes it all but impossible to migrate. Gtk3 is an aggressive move to > strip out apps which don't fit the GNOME3 model, a model which I find > abhorrent and completely unsuited to how I want my projects to behave. I have no idea where you got this bullshit from. The changes between GTK 2.x to 3.x are minor and imply in no way a change in a “model” you haven’t defined anyway (object model? widget model? event model? none of them have changed). -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342990116.24016.6.camel@tomoyo
