Re: gtk+ version in cvs

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

Gerold J. Wucherpfennig wrote:

> On Sunday 04 May 2003 16:46, Owen Taylor wrote:
>  
>
> > On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 10:27, Gerold J. Wucherpfennig wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > I've built gtk+ from cvs HEAD, but unfortunately the
> > > version number is 2.2.0 and not 2.2.1 (gtk+-2.0.pc).
> > > My local cvs tree is clean and up-to-date, so I can't
> > > understand this. I'm using cvs HEAD.
> > > Has anybody an idea what's wrong?
> > >      
> > If you want the newer-than-2.2.1 version, use the gtk-2-2
> > branch of GTK+.
> >    
>
> Thanks, but that's not my problem.
>
> The problem is that with cvs HEAD, I get a gtk 2.2.0.
> The strange thing is, that I did a clean build and my local cvs dir is
> up-to-date.
>
> Then eog fails, because it wants gtk 2.2.1, but I don't have that :-(
The head branch of gtk+ in CVS is not gtk 2.2.0.  It is the development 
branch that will eventually become gtk 2.4.  The version number simply 
hasn't been incremented (as Owen said).

You really want the gtk-2-2 branch.

> > HEAD is always a bit risky, one way or the other; we'll bump
> > the version to 2.3.x soon, but haven't done so yet for various
> > reasons.
> >    
> No RISC, no fun ;-)
>  
Well, if you are after a working system, you want to use the branch.  
That is what you should be using if you are building Gnome 2.2 or 2.3 
stuff.  You might want to try using a build script, which can help take 
care of this sort of stuff for you.

James.

--
Email: james daa com au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/