On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, jiho wrote:
On 01 Jul 2006, at 14:38 , jiho wrote:
On 01 Jul 2006, at 14:15 , Ben Fowler wrote:
Mac OS X - fink has 2.4.9 in stable; anything more recent that 2.6.10 will cause disruption, I fear.
Here is the answer I received from Fink GTK packages maintainers.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Benjamin Reed" <rangerrick@...400...>
To be honest, I think mostly people are afraid to touch it. :)
I think what it will need is a concerted effort to hack up all of the gtk-using packages to be updated (in the manner we did to move to the 10.4 tree) and get everything moved at once.
so it seems i nothing will happen in the near future :-)
I asked the GTK fink people the same question a while ago when the idea of depending on 2.8 was pitched. I recieved a similar reply that it was a big dependency mess and it was all too hard. One of the major problems is needing to move to a new non-apple version of freetype. Which makes things a real mess. The following statment from Daniel Macks gave me a little more hope:
| Freetype claims that 2.2 has reverted to compatibility with pre-2.1.9. | Breaking binary compatibility is the only reason 2.1.9 has to be a | separate package with files in weird locations and not just a new | version of the pre-existing freetype2 package. So we need to verify | that nothing has changed or been removed from the public interface of | freetype going from 2.1.4 to 2.2.1. | | If that's true, we can probably upgrade freetype2 to 2.2.x, and ignore | freetype219 and its nightmare entirely. That would mean we could | easily upgrade things that require the newer freetype. | | Which still leaves cairo. Here's the last time I rambled on about its | issues: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.macosx.fink.devel/12484
So I guess the first thing to do would be look at the freetype compatibility issue. The quoted link describes the dependency problems of this change quite well. Does seem like a lot of work.
Cheers, Michael