On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the > future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider was > The Man, so i guess people forgot about that
That was never the case. We actually saw the gtk2 flag only as a transitional tool during the initial release of gnome 2, too bad it stuck around as long as it did. > > it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting > > Gtk1 upstream with regards to security issues etc.. > > and when such a situation arises, the solution may to simply drop the > optional > support. such a situation has not arose, so using such hypothetical examples > is meaningless. Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went 2.0 . The only reason there has been some minimal support are the bling distros like RH and the fact that Debian was stuck in the stone age. Let's be realistic, if an application hasn't been ported to gtk+-2 yet it is not maintained or it is an internal to some commercial business. I don't think gtk 1 will leave the tree soon, but at least we can try to make it unneeded on most users systems. - foser
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
