Re: TARBALLS DUE: GNOME 2.5.0 Development Release

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

On 21/10/03 03:42, Jonathan Blandford wrote:

> Mark Finlay <sisob tuxfamily org> writes:
>
>  
>
> > > If we do pre-release tarballs, they'll be available for 2.5.0 (otherwise you
> > > won't be able to build half of the existing modules).
> > >      
> > There will probably still be trouble with 2.5.0 - right now jhbuild on
> > HEAD uses gtk HEAD and doesn't get very far before erroring out.
> >    
>
> Yeah.  I've been removing all the -DGTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED flags locally
> for now to get it all building.  But we should all try to branch and get
> building on GTK+-HEAD ASAP, so that we can shake out as many problems
> from GTK+ as we can.
>  
This does bring up the question of whether it is right to have these 
flags turned on by default in tarball builds at all though.  Do we want 
released tarballs to stop building in the future because some library 
they use deprecated a symbol in a future version?

It sort of defeats the purpose of backward compatibility in the platform 
if all of our applications explicitly turn off all the support code 
designed to provide this compatibility.

I am not saying that the *_DISABLE_DEPRECATED macros should never be 
used; just that they shouldn't be turned on by default for tarball 
builds (kind of like -Werror ...).

James.

--
Email: james daa com au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/