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

Andrew Johnson wrote:

On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 17:13 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
<quote who="Andrew Johnson">

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 going to be released once
I get a chance.
So why on earth are we duplicating the code in gtk-engines? You're actually
doing work to sync with code that is correctly and sensibly maintained
elsewhere. It means we have 0.6 and 2.10 versions hanging around (because it
is the version of the gtk-engines tarball release that matters, nothing

It's reasonable that we have a bunch of engines primarily being maintained
in the one module, but it is not at all sensible for us to be duplicating
code and slapping new version numbers on it.

I suggest only shipping code that is primarily maintained in gtk-engines,
and leaving the other upstreams to release their code under their own terms.

As I said. I don't want it there but last GNOME release I wasn't
thinking ahead when I let it make it into gnome-themes, and I never
thought at all when I let it get into gnome-themes-extras last year.
Paying the price with mayhem and multiple patches to multiple locations.
Not again.... It went into gtk-engines to solve that problem for those
building from source without the benefit of sanity.

I am not going out of my way to maintain it, just add a few minor bug
fixes so it doesn't get bug reports about things I already fixed in
official stable branch on which its based.

For binary purposes I expect people to disable it from gtk-engines and
depend on smooth packages based on official smooth releases, with
official smooth version numbers.
For all practical packaging purposes you should pretend it isn't even
there. I am quite sure I even said or implied this in the gtk-engines
README. Maybe I simply need to clarify the README more..
So if the smooth engine is a new feature for the gtk-engines module, and should not be used by distributors, wouldn't it make sense to remove it?

It seems particularly bad if it isn't going to stay in sync with upstream releases.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]