Hi,
On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote:
> I don't see here an active discussion about Gtk+4.0[1]? So I'm trying to
> write about my thoughts, in a careful way. In the first moment, I thought
> this is a good idea and just the numbering is misleading. Stability is what
> developers want, we need it, we love it. With a few days distance,
> numbering is just a small issue, I see this now entirely different and
> three major issues:
Here are some thoughts I have about all this, from a downstream maintainer POV.
Thanks! It's good to get opinions from all over the place.
My concern with this new scheme is that GTK+ libraries will have to bump the
soname every 6 months (if they want to support the latest GTK+). That can be
manageable for say vte or gnome-desktop, although it may be bad if some third
party apps pick a dependency on the vte for GTK+ 4.2 but don't update it for
GTK+ 4.4, as then distros would need to ship an increasing number of versions
that are unlikely to get any support upstream.
I'm expecting this will become less and less of a problem as apps move to Flatpak as a means of distribution.
But do you expect WebKitGTK+ to bump the ABI every 6 months?
That does seem to point to a problem — if an app uses Library X which does follow the unstable GTK series, and Library Y which doesn't, then the app developer is forced to stick to the stable series of GTK and an old version of Library X in order to accommodate Library Y.
Any thoughts?
I feel like the X.[024] releases are just snapshots of a development branch,
with X.6 being the stable release, and I wonder if X.[024] shouldn't clearly be
labelled as that, regardless of what version number is chosen (be it 4.0,
3.99.0, 4.0beta1 or whatever).
In my opinion the label "unstable release" communicates exactly that. I'm not sure what "development branch" communicates that "unstable release" doesn't?
Regards,
Philip C
