Re: gtk+-1.2.10

["J. Ali Harlow" <gtk-list avrc city ac uk>]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Drazen Kacar wrote:
> J. Ali Harlow wrote:
> 
> > In the meantime, we will be forced
> > to ship stable versions that subvert your check if you refuse to provide a
> > workaround. The code is already written and in place. The user will see
> > nothing.
> 
> Wow, we could play a game here. Owen scores a point whenever he releases
> GTK source (or a patch, just to make the cycle shorter) which makes GTK
> unusable with the existing game binaries. You score a point whenever you
> release source or a patch which will work setgid with the existing GTK
> binaries. To make it more interesting, patches don't have to be portable,
> ie. a single OS on a specific architecture counts.
> 
> And mere mortals can take whichever side they want, but they only may
> select compiler, linker and assembler flags, without changing the sources.

I know you're only having fun, but just in case there's any confusion:

We won't do any such thing. As I said several days ago, if the GTK+ team decide
to take steps to block our subversion of their check, we'll simply drop GTK+
support until we can fix the problem.

My job is to get Slash'EM to compile (and run) on as many systems as practical.
I'm not overly worried about 1.2.9 if 1.2.10 is due to be released soon,
because I don't think many people will be running it in the real world. I am
worried about the current stable version of GTK+ because this is likely to turn
up in the next RedHat etc., Linux distributions.

I'm also not going to start playing silly buggers over this because it stops
being practical and starts getting stupid. I don't won't to clutter up Slash'EM
with hacks to support GTK+ and I'm sure the GTK+ team don't want to clutter up
GTK+ with hacks to prevent one application running.

At the end of the day, we both want what we think is best for our users. If we
can come to an agreement on what that is then we can move forward (even if it's
an agreement to disagree). If not, then there will have to be an interruption of
service. I know I'll get some flack from the Slash'EM user base for that, but
there won't be much else I can do. We will have no choice but to wait for the
proper fix to be implemented.

-- 
Ali Harlow                              Email: ali avrc city ac uk
Research programmer                     Tel:   (020) 7477 8000 X 4348
Applied Vision Research Centre          Intl: +44 20 7477 8000 X 4348
City University                         Fax:   (020) 7505 5515
London                                  Intl: +44 20 7505 5515