Re: Solution suggestion [Was: gtk-engines photographed eating children]
- From: Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <uraeus linuxrising org>
- To: Andrew Johnson <ajgenius ajgenius us>
- Cc: GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Solution suggestion [Was: gtk-engines photographed eating children]
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:26:42 +0100
I thought the whole point of having gtk-engines with all these engines
includes was to have one maintained module with everything included.
If its to just be a 'meta-module' with code dumped in from other places
I honestly do not see the point of it at all. I mean if you don't even
want smooth having this package as its home then that says a lot in my
Also could we end this thread. Either up the version to 2.10 or let Jeff
figure out how to solve his fucked up packaging on his own. He can claim
until he is blue that the debian packaging of the engines was sane,
although everyone else considers it not to be, so all that is left is
for either you to release gtk-engines 2.10 or ignore his cries. Or ditch
the whole gtk-engines module into the sea if my impression as listed in
the first paragraph is correct.
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 00:54 -0500, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> 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 If the gtk1 engine is no longer maintained it might be trivial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
> 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
] [Thread Prev