Hi All,
I just wanted to follow up a couple of recent discussions on our build dependencies.
1. There was some talk of moving to C++17. Tav - I think you were going ahead with a dependency bump in master? Are we still doing this, or did we find any issues?
2. Are we OK to bump to Gtk+ 3.24? AFAIK this is the final Gtk+ 3 version so would be a good stable target for Inkscape 1.1. The only issue would be RHEL/CentOS/Debian LTS are stuck on an older version. My feeling about this kind of thing is that we keep Inkscape 1.0.* as our LTS and push ahead with a dependency bump in master.
Best wishes,
Alex
Hi Alex,
Are there any features in Gtk 3.24 that we need that would limit our Linux deployments for 1.1
And, are we planning on 1.1 being a non-stable release? I didn't know we had an LTS strategy (or even what 'support' or 'long term' means in the context of an all-volunteer project like Inkscape).
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 12:33 +0100, Alex Valavanis wrote:
Hi All,
I just wanted to follow up a couple of recent discussions on our build dependencies.
- There was some talk of moving to C++17. Tav - I think you were
going ahead with a dependency bump in master? Are we still doing this, or did we find any issues?
- Are we OK to bump to Gtk+ 3.24? AFAIK this is the final Gtk+ 3
version so would be a good stable target for Inkscape 1.1. The only issue would be RHEL/CentOS/Debian LTS are stuck on an older version. My feeling about this kind of thing is that we keep Inkscape 1.0.* as our LTS and push ahead with a dependency bump in master.
Best wishes,
Alex _______________________________________________ Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org
I feel like calling Inkscape 1.0 an LTS is more wishful thinking than something we can deliver. I hope we'll be able to release a stable 1.1, and I hope that won't be too far in the future.
Thomas
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:12 PM doctormo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
Are there any features in Gtk 3.24 that we need that would limit our Linux deployments for 1.1
And, are we planning on 1.1 being a non-stable release? I didn't know we had an LTS strategy (or even what 'support' or 'long term' means in the context of an all-volunteer project like Inkscape).
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 12:33 +0100, Alex Valavanis wrote:
Hi All,
I just wanted to follow up a couple of recent discussions on our build dependencies.
- There was some talk of moving to C++17. Tav - I think you were
going ahead with a dependency bump in master? Are we still doing this, or did we find any issues?
- Are we OK to bump to Gtk+ 3.24? AFAIK this is the final Gtk+ 3
version so would be a good stable target for Inkscape 1.1. The only issue would be RHEL/CentOS/Debian LTS are stuck on an older version. My feeling about this kind of thing is that we keep Inkscape 1.0.* as our LTS and push ahead with a dependency bump in master.
Best wishes,
Alex _______________________________________________ Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:33:13PM +0100, Alex Valavanis wrote:
Hi All,
Hi Alex,
I just wanted to follow up a couple of recent discussions on our build dependencies.
- There was some talk of moving to C++17. Tav - I think you were going
ahead with a dependency bump in master? Are we still doing this, or did we find any issues?
We’ve already done that in !1755 (see e6bb9d231f0f1324baa73e5a73f35509f7bad332 on master), we can now use C++17 everywhere on master, as well as in 2geom (for instance !28 replaces most boost:optional with std::optional).
I’m not aware of any issue coming from there, I’ve done all of my recent GSoC development on top of master and things seem to work.
There is of course a lot of improvements we can now do to the codebase, I tried to list the relevant ones on the wiki[1] but I haven’t started applying them.
- Are we OK to bump to Gtk+ 3.24? AFAIK this is the final Gtk+ 3 version
so would be a good stable target for Inkscape 1.1. The only issue would be RHEL/CentOS/Debian LTS are stuck on an older version. My feeling about this kind of thing is that we keep Inkscape 1.0.* as our LTS and push ahead with a dependency bump in master.
I agree with that plan. What are the wanted features this would unlock?
Best wishes,
Alex
Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org
[1] https://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php?title=C%2B%2B17
Ah great... I hadn't noticed the C++17 bump.
For the Gtk+ 3.24 switch, it's nothing particularly significant in terms of functionality. It's mainly a stepping-stone to Gtk+ 4 so there are a couple of important backported features. The most significant are that we can use Gtk::EventController to give a unified event handling model, and we can use Gtk::make_managed to provide a more modern memory allocation interface.
AV
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 13:17, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot linkmauve@linkmauve.fr wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:33:13PM +0100, Alex Valavanis wrote:
Hi All,
Hi Alex,
I just wanted to follow up a couple of recent discussions on our build dependencies.
- There was some talk of moving to C++17. Tav - I think you were going
ahead with a dependency bump in master? Are we still doing this, or did
we
find any issues?
We’ve already done that in !1755 (see e6bb9d231f0f1324baa73e5a73f35509f7bad332 on master), we can now use C++17 everywhere on master, as well as in 2geom (for instance !28 replaces most boost:optional with std::optional).
I’m not aware of any issue coming from there, I’ve done all of my recent GSoC development on top of master and things seem to work.
There is of course a lot of improvements we can now do to the codebase, I tried to list the relevant ones on the wiki[1] but I haven’t started applying them.
- Are we OK to bump to Gtk+ 3.24? AFAIK this is the final Gtk+ 3
version
so would be a good stable target for Inkscape 1.1. The only issue would
be
RHEL/CentOS/Debian LTS are stuck on an older version. My feeling about this kind of thing is that we keep Inkscape 1.0.* as our LTS and push
ahead
with a dependency bump in master.
I agree with that plan. What are the wanted features this would unlock?
Best wishes,
Alex
Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org
[1] https://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php?title=C%2B%2B17
-- Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
I'd really like to switch to 3.24, and have a branch that does it. The big feature for me in GTKmm 3.24 is that it has the Native Dialog APIs which are needed to make portals work. They were in much earlier versions of GTK, but GTKmm didn't have them.
I think the "LTS strategy" was more about making it easy to develop Inkscape. We've tried to make it easier for developers to join the project and not have to have a development OS to do that. I feel like with the availability of containers today that is less of an issue than it once was, but still a good idea, not everyone uses containers. In my case, my laptop runs Ubuntu 16.04 LTS but I develop Inkscape in a Ubuntu 20.04 container. Ted On Jun 10 2020, at 7:48 am, Alex Valavanis valavanisalex@gmail.com wrote:
Ah great... I hadn't noticed the C++17 bump.
For the Gtk+ 3.24 switch, it's nothing particularly significant in terms of functionality. It's mainly a stepping-stone to Gtk+ 4 so there are a couple of important backported features. The most significant are that we can use Gtk::EventController to give a unified event handling model, and we can use Gtk::make_managed to provide a more modern memory allocation interface.
AV On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 13:17, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot <linkmauve@linkmauve.fr (mailto:linkmauve@linkmauve.fr)> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:33:13PM +0100, Alex Valavanis wrote:
Hi All,
Hi Alex,
I just wanted to follow up a couple of recent discussions on our build dependencies.
- There was some talk of moving to C++17. Tav - I think you were going
ahead with a dependency bump in master? Are we still doing this, or did we find any issues?
We’ve already done that in !1755 (see e6bb9d231f0f1324baa73e5a73f35509f7bad332 on master), we can now use C++17 everywhere on master, as well as in 2geom (for instance !28 replaces most boost:optional with std::optional).
I’m not aware of any issue coming from there, I’ve done all of my recent GSoC development on top of master and things seem to work.
There is of course a lot of improvements we can now do to the codebase, I tried to list the relevant ones on the wiki[1] but I haven’t started applying them.
- Are we OK to bump to Gtk+ 3.24? AFAIK this is the final Gtk+ 3 version
so would be a good stable target for Inkscape 1.1. The only issue would be RHEL/CentOS/Debian LTS are stuck on an older version. My feeling about this kind of thing is that we keep Inkscape 1.0.* as our LTS and push ahead with a dependency bump in master.
I agree with that plan. What are the wanted features this would unlock?
Best wishes,
Alex
Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org (mailto:inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org) To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org (mailto:inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org)
[1] https://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php?title=C%2B%2B17
Emmanuel Gil Peyrot
Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org
The only issue I can see is that it doesn't compile for me on an Ubuntu LTS version (currently on 18.04).
Maren
Am 10.06.20 um 14:17 schrieb Emmanuel Gil Peyrot:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:33:13PM +0100, Alex Valavanis wrote:
Hi All,
Hi Alex,
I just wanted to follow up a couple of recent discussions on our build dependencies.
- There was some talk of moving to C++17. Tav - I think you were going
ahead with a dependency bump in master? Are we still doing this, or did we find any issues?
We’ve already done that in !1755 (see e6bb9d231f0f1324baa73e5a73f35509f7bad332 on master), we can now use C++17 everywhere on master, as well as in 2geom (for instance !28 replaces most boost:optional with std::optional).
I’m not aware of any issue coming from there, I’ve done all of my recent GSoC development on top of master and things seem to work.
There is of course a lot of improvements we can now do to the codebase, I tried to list the relevant ones on the wiki[1] but I haven’t started applying them.
- Are we OK to bump to Gtk+ 3.24? AFAIK this is the final Gtk+ 3 version
so would be a good stable target for Inkscape 1.1. The only issue would be RHEL/CentOS/Debian LTS are stuck on an older version. My feeling about this kind of thing is that we keep Inkscape 1.0.* as our LTS and push ahead with a dependency bump in master.
I agree with that plan. What are the wanted features this would unlock?
Best wishes,
Alex
Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org
[1] https://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php?title=C%2B%2B17
Inkscape Devel mailing list -- inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-devel-leave@lists.inkscape.org
participants (6)
-
Alex Valavanis -
doctormo＠gmail.com -
Emmanuel Gil Peyrot -
Maren Hachmann -
Ted Gould -
Thomas Holder