Re: GTK+-2.3.0 released [unstable]

[Ed Sweetman <ed sweetman wmich edu>]

Matthias Mann wrote:
>             
>         ***  Re: GTK+-2.3.0 released [unstable]  ***
>  
>  On Saturday October 25 2003 00:35 CEST, Owen Taylor wrote:
>  
>  > GTK+-2.3.0 is now available
>  
>  Hi Owen,
>  
>  thanks for this news that will make happy a lot of people!
>  
>  And while being happy about that news i was becomming some
>  ideas. Could be some criticize on Gtk+. But please take it
>  easy. Nobody needs to be tired! Cause nobody's perfect...
>  
>  ...Last months i wrote an application with Gtk+2.x. For the
>  file selection i used GtkFileSelection and for a tree view
>  GtkTreeView.
>  
>  My statement:
>  
>  Now GtkCTree is not very old but deprecated. What's about
>  GtkFileSelection? Du i need to update my source code in
>  the next three months?
>  
>  If yes i think: "HELP!!! how much time i will need for
>  maintaining my source codes!"
>  
>  I'm thinking that this question never should be called.
>  And now?
>  
>  I know that old ideas sometimes needs to be fallen down.
>  And i didn't forget that now Gtk+ is in a development
>  step called version 2.x (the stable one). But there is an
>  idea that i saw in reallity:
>  
>  If i like to install any for M$-Windows 1995 written
>  application on a $Windows XP system (since 2000) there are
>  no problems while using these very old binaries on a modern
>  PC system. But installing Gtk+ application binaries,
>  written in 2002, will make big problems for big projects
>  if i like to install them on a one year newer OS(with Gtk+)?
>  
>  On modern PC systems (most have them) isn't it possible to
>  keep old traditions? If a developer needs to update some
>  source code to the newest feautures of Gtk+ he will do this!
>  
>  And while the old, older and oldest code is running perfect
>  or good enough, why removeing those code? Isn't it equal
>  wheter a great library like Gtk+ needs 10 or 20 MB on hard
>  disk?
>  
>  Have a nice day!
>  
>  Mathew
>  
>  --
>  Nothing is impossible!
>    You only need to know the way.
>  
>    :-)

you're comparing statically compiled win32 binaries to a shared library 
binary.  Of course it's going to make a difference what your current 
gtk+ version is if you have it dynamically linked.  So if that's a 
problem for you, statically link your binaries and distribute your stuff 
like win32 does, already compiled.


When staying up to date with a library you have to expect certain 
functions will get updated, deprecated and replaced. The only thing you 
can do besides the windows way (statically link or have every program 
bring it's own version of the library in it's own directory) is to not 
use functions that are on their way to becoming obscoleted.  It's not 
like this happened over night to decide to remove a function from gtk, 
you had plenty of time to port the code if you really wanted to.