newest gtkmm-dev necessary to compile HEAD
Hello, So it appears one needs the newest gtkmm libs to compile HEAD. I did not foresee this when using some features of the library, and, now that people have upgraded, it's nonsense to revert ;)
What's unclear to me is which version is fine, here it is libgtkmm-2.4-dev 2.8.0-0ubuntu1, can others add info?
thanks for your patience, ralf
On 11/9/05, Ralf Stephan <ralf@...748...> wrote:
Hello, So it appears one needs the newest gtkmm libs to compile HEAD. I did not foresee this when using some features of the library, and, now that people have upgraded, it's nonsense to revert ;)
What's unclear to me is which version is fine, here it is libgtkmm-2.4-dev 2.8.0-0ubuntu1, can others add info?
Same lib, same distro here, so not much help from me, sorry.
If I understand correctly, gtkmm is not used in stable UI currently. Would it be a good idea to make compilation of gtkmm an option then? IIRC, gtkmm based GUi is not ready for any kind of real work yet, so we could strip dependencies until gtkmmfication of code is finished. Or is it not possible at all?
Alexandre
On 11/9/05, Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre.prokoudine@...400...> wrote:
If I understand correctly, gtkmm is not used in stable UI currently.
Yes it is. Lots of widgets and dialogs all over the place use gtkmm already.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 12:27:33PM +0100, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Hello, So it appears one needs the newest gtkmm libs to compile HEAD. I did not foresee this when using some features of the library, and, now that people have upgraded, it's nonsense to revert ;)
Which features in particular are being used?
Keep in mind that upgrading the gtk libraries can have fairly widespread impact on users (yes, there's probably many out there still using nothing newer than gtk 2.4 who'll be sending in a lot of bug reports and questions to you and other developers). So depending on how important those features are, it may indeed be sensible to stay with our current dependency levels.
Bryce
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 08:08:37PM +0100, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Which features in particular are being used?
Ellipsizing text/labels using Pango but it's already reverted.
I simply didn't know!
No problem. It actually brings up a good point about whether it's time to think about if we'd gain from upgrading our dependencies. I have a hunch that we could switch to 2.6 with minimal pain at this point. 2.8 would be more of a stretch, but if the 0.44 release is a few months out we may even have enough time for that...
Also, I hope no one feels badly about the post-branch merging breakage; I think this is simply to be expected in the cycle of development. In fact, sometimes temporary breakage is the quickest way to identify and fix problems. As I'd had some trouble building the CXX branch, I'm quite pleased to see this merged in. :-)
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 08:08:37PM +0100, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Which features in particular are being used?
Ellipsizing text/labels using Pango but it's already reverted.
I simply didn't know!
No problem. It actually brings up a good point about whether it's time to think about if we'd gain from upgrading our dependencies. I have a hunch that we could switch to 2.6 with minimal pain at this point. 2.8 would be more of a stretch, but if the 0.44 release is a few months out we may even have enough time for that...
Also, I hope no one feels badly about the post-branch merging breakage; I think this is simply to be expected in the cycle of development. In fact, sometimes temporary breakage is the quickest way to identify and fix problems. As I'd had some trouble building the CXX branch, I'm quite pleased to see this merged in. :-)
Since you brought that up... Given that .44 is a few months out, if we did require 2.8, how is this our problem if people don't upgrade? If people want to use the newest version of The GIMP when it hits (2.4), they'll be required to upgrade GTK+ for that. Newest Gnome? Already required.
If we do manage to really need some new feature (gtk-cairo canvas for example), there's no choice... at that point we can say, if you don't want to upgrade GTK, stick with version X because that works fine with older libraries. For the sake of example, *every* time I upgrade GIMP or GAIM (on windows) they require the most recent GTK libs. Do I care? No... I get bug fixes. I know it's not quite the same when your window manager depends on the libraries, but it's generally for the sake of improvement.
I'm not saying that we should not try to keep the requirements as low as possible, but one day whenever we do need to bump them, it'll probably be very worthwhile to the users.
Just my .02
-Josh
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:29:58PM -0700, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 08:08:37PM +0100, Ralf Stephan wrote: No problem. It actually brings up a good point about whether it's time to think about if we'd gain from upgrading our dependencies. I have a hunch that we could switch to 2.6 with minimal pain at this point. 2.8 would be more of a stretch, but if the 0.44 release is a few months out we may even have enough time for that...
Since you brought that up... Given that .44 is a few months out, if we did require 2.8, how is this our problem if people don't upgrade? If people want to use the newest version of The GIMP when it hits (2.4), they'll be required to upgrade GTK+ for that. Newest Gnome? Already required.
Changing dependencies presents us with two tangible problems:
1. Some portion of our userbase is using older versions of the dependencies, and some portion of them will complain to us when they have to upgrade. Documenting and warning them will reduce this a little, but a lot of people won't pay attention to that and will complain. It won't be our problem to get them upgraded, but it WILL be our problem to have to wade through all their complaints and questions. ;-)
2. For packages for certain platforms, sometimes the dependency won't be available. This was a bit of a problem when we went to 2.4, and so we did still have a number of people who were stuck having to use older versions of inkscape.
I imagine the above two issues would probably be doable with gtk 2.6 since it's been out sufficiently long; for 2.8 I'm less sure.
It would probably be worthwhile to look at what version of Gtk is installed in the enterprise distros that were released around a year ago. That'd give a reasonably conservative estimate of what library versions we can count on being out there.
Bryce
On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
It would probably be worthwhile to look at what version of Gtk is installed in the enterprise distros that were released around a year ago. That'd give a reasonably conservative estimate of what library versions we can count on being out there.
Actually... probably not.
Remember, the enterprise distros tend to have very long lifecycles. (IT departments dislike having to vet and roll-out new versions constantly).
Last I'd looked, you were seeing 5-year lifetimes for releases. And although RedHat has 4 out, they still have 3 (though at least they seem to have finally aged-out 2).
Hmmm... one quick peek found me GTK+ 2.4.13 for Centos 4. This appears in the latest (4.2) on the mirror close to me. That would also tend to indicate that RedHat is only up to 2.4.13 on their very latest-and-greatest.
Looks like SUSE enterprise 9 is only up to GTK+ 2.2.4, so they're right out. :-) NLD seems to have GTK+ 2.4.9 It's their home product, "SUSE Linux 10.0" that has GTK+ 2.8.3.
Are there any other enterprise distros we should check out?
Please tell me you're joking ... Inkscape now depends on GTK+ 2.8?! When did this happen? You realise this will exclude anybody who hasn't upgraded pretty much their entire OS in the past few months, right?
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:27:33 +0100, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Hello, So it appears one needs the newest gtkmm libs to compile HEAD. I did not foresee this when using some features of the library, and, now that people have upgraded, it's nonsense to revert ;)
What's unclear to me is which version is fine, here it is libgtkmm-2.4-dev 2.8.0-0ubuntu1, can others add info?
thanks for your patience, ralf
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
Mike Hearn wrote:
Please tell me you're joking ... Inkscape now depends on GTK+ 2.8?! When did this happen? You realise this will exclude anybody who hasn't upgraded pretty much their entire OS in the past few months, right?
Whoa, slow down people. Ralf's last commit made my autopackage build with exactly the same libs as 0.43. Does this mean it is fixed?
Aaron
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:09:53 +0100, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Yes. Thanks for your acuity.
OK, cool. Sorry for being rather rude .... I'm unfortunately rather used to projects/developers who really don't care what their dependencies are.
Inkscape has always been more like commercial development houses in this respect and I was scared for a minute I'd have to stop using it as an example of how to get it right ;)
thanks -mike
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Ralf Stephan wrote:
So it appears one needs the newest gtkmm libs to compile HEAD. I did not foresee this when using some features of the library, and, now that people have upgraded, it's nonsense to revert ;)
What's unclear to me is which version is fine, here it is libgtkmm-2.4-dev 2.8.0-0ubuntu1, can others add info?
I've been using gtkmm-2.4-dev 2.6.4-1 this whole time and haven't had a problem compiling CVS at any point.
Cheers, Michael
What's unclear to me is which version is fine, here it is libgtkmm-2.4-dev 2.8.0-0ubuntu1, can others add info?
I've been using gtkmm-2.4-dev 2.6.4-1 this whole time and haven't had a problem compiling CVS at any point.
Thanks. This confirms the 2.5.4 Changelog info, and it refutes the Subject in that not the newest version was needed, but that it's a Gtk+-2.6 feature.
ralf
On Nov 10, 2005, at 4:38 AM, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Thanks. This confirms the 2.5.4 Changelog info, and it refutes the Subject in that not the newest version was needed, but that it's a Gtk+-2.6 feature.
I'd done a quick search on some versions out there, and it's looking like Gtk+-2.4.9 is one out there on current systems. In fact, it's on some latest-and-greatest in the Enterprise (aka business) distros, so we probably want to hold to that for a while.
participants (9)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Bryce Harrington -
bulia byak -
Jon A. Cruz -
Joshua A. Andler -
Michael Wybrow -
Mike Hearn -
Ralf Stephan