I've just comitted Aubanel's gtkmm upgrade patch. You will need to rerun autogen.sh.
From now on, libgtk+ >= 2.4, libsigc++ >= 2.0 and libgtkmm >= 2.4 are
required for Inkscape.
I have tried to carefully test and build, but this did require some autofoo changes I do not fully understand. So be aware, and if you have any problems please help me track them down and fix them.
-mental
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:06:58AM -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
From now on, libgtk+ >= 2.4, libsigc++ >= 2.0 and libgtkmm >= 2.4 are required for Inkscape.
I have tried to carefully test and build, but this did require some autofoo changes I do not fully understand. So be aware, and if you have any problems please help me track them down and fix them.
For what it's worth, on debian I did an "apt-get install gtkmm-2.4-dev", then reran autogen, configure, make, and everything worked great. No problems seen yet.
On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 08:46, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:06:58 -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
From now on, libgtk+ >= 2.4, libsigc++ >= 2.0 and libgtkmm >= 2.4 are required for Inkscape.
Am I the only one who thinks GTK 2.4 isn't widespread enough to depend on it yet?
Probably not. But remember that this is a dev version.
We'd been getting a steadily increasing volume of complaints from folks who have 2.4 installed and couldn't (easily) install the older gtkmm 2.0 dev packages.
By the time we're ready to release 0.40 it should be common enough.
-mental
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:06:58 -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
From now on, libgtk+ >= 2.4, libsigc++ >= 2.0 and libgtkmm >= 2.4 are required for Inkscape.
Am I the only one who thinks GTK 2.4 isn't widespread enough to depend on it yet?
I am also concerned about it and libsigc++ 2. But the Gtkmm upgrade has been on the roadmap for some time to do this upgrade, and I think even if it puts us a bit out in front of things, we should do it. I figure that if we're going to go to the trouble of converting over to Gtkmm, then by coding to a very current version of it, we will be able to make use of all of its latest and greatest capabilities while we're focusing on doing the conversion work. Another benefit is that if we find issues or develop augmentations to the library, our work will be more directly relevant. Another point is that we're at least a month or two away from the next release, so that provides at least a little time for these libs to become more widespread.
It would probably be smart for us to be careful about not adding too many other new deps for this release, since those three upgrades may be enough for most people.
Once the conversion work is done, though, it would probably be wise to not be too aggressive in upgrading it; there will be other areas we'll want to focus development on anyway.
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:06:58 -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
From now on, libgtk+ >= 2.4, libsigc++ >= 2.0 and libgtkmm >= 2.4 are required for Inkscape.
Am I the only one who thinks GTK 2.4 isn't widespread enough to depend on it yet?
I am also concerned about it and libsigc++ 2. But the Gtkmm upgrade has been on the roadmap for some time to do this upgrade,
From fink, I get http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/index.php?phpLang=en
gtk+2 stable: 2.2.4-2, unstable: 2.4.3-5
libsigc++12 stable: 1.2.5-1, unstable: 1.2.5-1
gtkmm2 stable: 2.2.8-2, unstable: 2.2.12-2
(these were all for OS 10.3 only)
So... it looks like we're leaving Mac fink users out in the cold. My guess then is that we need to talk to maintainers or take up some of it ourselves.
It'd be good to keep this updated. http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/inkscape :-)
On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 14:14, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
From fink, I get http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/index.php?phpLang=en
gtk+2 stable: 2.2.4-2, unstable: 2.4.3-5
libsigc++12 stable: 1.2.5-1, unstable: 1.2.5-1
gtkmm2 stable: 2.2.8-2, unstable: 2.2.12-2
(these were all for OS 10.3 only)
So... it looks like we're leaving Mac fink users out in the cold. My guess then is that we need to talk to maintainers or take up some of it ourselves.
We seem to be their main driver for sigc++ packaging, actually. IIRC they originally packaged sigc++ at our behest.
-mental
On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 22:24, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 14:14, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
From fink, I get http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/index.php?phpLang=en
libsigc++12 stable: 1.2.5-1, unstable: 1.2.5-1
We seem to be their main driver for sigc++ packaging, actually. IIRC they originally packaged sigc++ at our behest.
note also that the correct package would be libsigc++2 or libsigc++, since libsigc++12 is just for the sigc++ 1.2 lineage.
-mental
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 22:24, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 14:14, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
From fink, I get http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/index.php?phpLang=en
libsigc++12 stable: 1.2.5-1, unstable: 1.2.5-1
We seem to be their main driver for sigc++ packaging, actually. IIRC they originally packaged sigc++ at our behest.
note also that the correct package would be libsigc++2 or libsigc++, since libsigc++12 is just for the sigc++ 1.2 lineage.
Could you add a brief section on the top of the CompilingInkscape page listing these deps? I figure if people on certain distros run into trouble, we can use that as a collection point for tips and tricks.
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
Could you add a brief section on the top of the CompilingInkscape page listing these deps? I figure if people on certain distros run into trouble, we can use that as a collection point for tips and tricks.
Actually... I think we need a bit more than a brief section.
We need a table. Or a few. Need to list deps for each of our releases, and what's present on major distros. Thus we'd end up with a "You're on RH 8.0? Suffer!!!!" easy reference chart
participants (5)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Jon A. Cruz -
Kees Cook -
MenTaLguY -
Mike Hearn