Re: external dependencies; trolling for more feedback, pushing to make it official ; -)

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com> wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Rob Bradford <rob robster org uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 16:51 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > On 9/11/06, Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com> wrote:
> > > > The topic came up earlier, and I think there was a general consensus
> > > > that it is a good idea to freeze the versions of external dependencies,
> > > > and use tarball modules for them in the gnome-2.18 moduleset in jhbuild.
> > >
> > > Due to the feedback received so far, I've modifed the exact wording of
> > > the proposal and the list of versions a couple times so far.  I
> > > thought it'd be worth posting the most recent version and asking if
> > > there was any further feedback on it or objections to it being
> > > adopted:
> >
> > Ace. I created and populated:
> > http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependenciesDistroAnalysis
> >
>
> Looking at this, and noticing that FC6 does not meet some of the requirement
> made me wonder: what exacly are the reasons that we require
>
>  dbus-glib            0.71
>  desktop-file-utils  0.11
>  liboil                   0.3.9
>
> ?
>
> In particular the desktop-file-utils version seems pretty arbitrary,
> since for all I
> know the only change wrt to 0.10 was to switch to goption commandline
> parsing...

Yes, they are almost completely arbitrary.  I didn't have the time to
investigate the best versions of each, and often just took the latest
release (figuring that it'd be better to get a cap on version number
now than to stick with the current depend-on-cvs situation).  I
figured others could provide feedback on improvements, like you are
doing.

Anyway, if those older versions satisfy current dependencies, I'll be
happy to downgrade those three.  Does anyone see any others?