Re: [Evolution-hackers] What GLib and GTK+ versions do we support?
- From: "Dave Richards" <drichard largo com>
- To: <evolution-hackers gnome org>, <kharish novell com>, <mbarnes redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] What GLib and GTK+ versions do we support?
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:58:15 -0400
Harish already knows my thoughts. :)
Fallback code is always appreciated, because some of us are limited in
what we can deploy because of support contracts. We aren't able to
install the latest libraries because of these contracts.
Also, version checking is appreciated during ./configure time.
Evolution currently doesn't check for certain package versions and
gladly builds for 20 minutes before failing on code that cannot compile
on older versions of GTK and Glib.
Dave
>>> Harish Krishnaswamy <kharish novell com> 09/20/06 11:39 AM >>>
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 16:26 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> Stupid question maybe, but configure.in doesn't tell me.
>
> I'm asking because I'd like to use some recently added features like
the
> GSlice allocator in some patches I'm working o
> n. What's the policy on
> this? Use whatever GNOME 2.16 supports?
'Whatever GNOME 2.16 supports' was my top-of-the-head answer, assuming
few (if any) users might want to update to the latest Evolution
stand-alone keeping their GNOME desktops intact. This was my thinking
when I approved the patches.
On second thoughts, there are users who use Evolution (for
Exchange/GroupWise connectivity) but run on a KDE desktop and it is not
all fun for them to update glib and above.
I feel it is more prudent to make the patch use g_slice features if a
supported version was available but falls back to the old implementation
otherwise.
This adds to the maintenance foo but gets us a few more happy users.
Any thoughts, others ?
-Harish
_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Disclaimer: According to Florida Public Records Law, email
correspondence to and from the City of Largo, including email addresses
and other personal information, is public record and must be made
available to the public and media upon request, unless otherwise exempt
by the Public Records Law.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]