A reply to https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtkmm/-/issues/97 and
https://discourse.gnome.org/t/in-compatibility-of-gtkmm-with-cairomm-pangomm-and-atkmm/6370?u=raghavgururajanand
The gtkmm developers have not (yet) started using discourse.gnome.org.
We still use the mailing list at https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtkmm-list.
The mailing list post
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtkmm-list/2020-December/msg00013.html
tries to explain the complicated relationships between the two sets of
module versions.
> [1] Why is gtkmm-3.24.4 incompatible with cairomm-1.16.0,
pangomm-2.48.0 and atkmm-2.36.0, as all of these are latest stable releases?
There are two sets of ABI-incompatible versions of glibmm, cairomm,
pangomm and atkmm. It was decided long ago that the new versions should
not have their major version numbers bumped up, because the underlying C
modules (glib, cairo, pango and atk) have not released ABI-incompatible
versions, and thus have not bumped their major versions. I'm not sure
this was the best possible decision, but now we have to live it.
The last versions that will be compatible with gtkmm-3.y.z are
glibmm-2.66.z, cairomm-1.14.z, pangomm-2.46.z and atkmm-2.34.z. (There
is no atkmm-2.34.z yet. Perhaps there will never be. The maintenance of
atkmm is really minimal.)
> [2] Will there be new release of gtkmm in 3.24 series, that will be
compatible with cairomm-1.16.0, pangomm-2.48.0 and atkmm-2.36.0?
No, there will never be a gtkmm-3.y.z version compatible with
libsigc++-3.y.z, glibmm-2.68.z, cairomm-1.16.z, pangomm-2.48.z and
atkmm-2.36.z. They are compatible with gtkmm-4.y.z.
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
gtkmm-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
