Re: Solution suggestion [Was: gtk-engines photographed eating children]

[Andrew Johnson <ajgenius ajgenius us>]

I did some looking and Mist has been mostly complete since 0.10, which
was the last standalone release almost two years ago. What was in
gnome-themes was that plus a few minor fixes by Dave Camp himself. So I
expect that it will be for the most part primarily maintained in
gtk-engines, the only issue is it also has a gtk1 engine, but I don't
see any other development on it so its last release may have been 0.10
in which case its not an issue anyway. I would count the latest version
as 0.11 I suppose to differentiate.

LighthouseBlue has been maintained on SF by the author, and has both
gtk1 and gtk2 engines which share portions of the same code base. It is
feasible there will be future releases of it, though we would have to
find out. If the gtk1 engine is no longer maintained it might be trivial
to make gtk-engines its future home. It's version is at 0.7(I knew one
of them was 0.7, I just got it mixed up).

ThinIce has not seen any development outside of gnome-themes in about
two years, so it seems quite likely its primary home would be
gtk-engines now anyway. It did a 2.0+ version bump itself when it ported
to gtk 2.0, and did few patch releases. Since being in gnome-themes
there have been some bug fixes, but again only minor, so adding another
patch version I would count the thinice in gtk-engines as 2.0.4.

Crux hasn't been maintained at all really, it was ported from the
original version by Seth and dumped into gnome-themes and hasn't been
touched much since for anything, so having it maintained in gtk-engines
won't be an issue. and having it keep the arbitrary version number of
2.10 onward makes little difference.

HC has as far as I can tell only every been maintained in gnome-themes,
so again 2.10 is as likely a version number as any.

Industrial, has traditionally been maintained by Ximian now Novell as
part of the artwork, but there has been talk recently of putting it in
gnome cvs, so if we can make sure that gtk-engines is where it stays
there shouldn't be any issues there UNLESS they wish to continue to
develop the gtk1 engine in sync with it. Because it was never maintained
seperately I believe its version is effectively that of the latest
Ximian/Novell Artwork since it was never officially a standalone module.

Smooth has been maintained and for now will continue to be maintained on
SF, it is in gtk-engines only too get it out of gnome-themes and
gnome-themes-extras not because I want to maintain it there. I will
continue to keep it in sync with the latest stable release + bug fixes
but generally speaking it only complicates things. It has its own
version which it will continue to keep, and I hope gets followed, right
now it is at 0.6, with a quick bug fix release of 0.6.0.1 going to be
released once I get a chance.

Redmond and Metal have only ever been maintained in gtk-engines in at
least the gtk 2.x lifespan and probably a lot longer. They are

Andrew

On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 16:10 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Andrew Johnson">
> 
> > Each gtk engine has its own version
> 
> > Mist is what, at 0.7? This wouldn't have changed anything from that
> > perspective except maybe a patch number on the package...
> 
> So, addressing the suggestion to use the engine versions - there is no clear
> documentation of individual engine versions in gtk-engines, so it's not
> surprising that there are packages of crux at version 2.9.x, for instance.
> 
> Regardless of issues peculiar to distribution packaging, the aggregation of
> engines that are not clearly maintained primarily in gtk-engines is cause
> for some confusion. Should distros/users choose industrial from gtk-engines
> (version 2.6.0) or from wherever else it's maintained and released (version
> 0.2.36.4)?
> 
> The problematic engines in this regard appear to be industrial and smooth,
> but potentially lighthouseblue, mist and thinice - are they now maintained in
> gtk-engines only?
> 
> As long as we have absolute clarity on the correct versions of particular
> engines - ie. source tarball versions and per-engine versions in gtk-engines
> if the maintainers choose to duplicate the engine code there - then we'll be
> fine. I strongly agree with you that engines should be maintained in only
> one place!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Jeff
> 
-- 
Andrew Johnson <ajgenius ajgenius us>