Hi, folks. Just a question - since GNOME 3 is being delayed and won't ship in F14, does it make sense to have a few apps (but not many) ported to GTK+ 3 for F14? I can see it causing more trouble along the lines of the gnome-python2-desktop package. Would it be better to move them back to GTK+ 2 and postpone porting to GTK+ 3 until F15? What's the plan in general for backing off from 2.90.x versions of GNOME bits? Thanks!
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, folks. Just a question - since GNOME 3 is being delayed and won't ship in F14, does it make sense to have a few apps (but not many) ported to GTK+ 3 for F14? I can see it causing more trouble along the lines of the gnome-python2-desktop package. Would it be better to move them back to GTK+ 2 and postpone porting to GTK+ 3 until F15? What's the plan in general for backing off from 2.90.x versions of GNOME bits? Thanks!
With the disabling of gnome-python2-evince the sugar team has an issue with our sugar-read package which depends on it. Maybe with an extra 6 months the gnome-python2 package can remain gtk2 and the gojection-introspection and other gnome python bits will be complete instead.
Peter
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 16:46 +0100, pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, folks. Just a question - since GNOME 3 is being delayed and won't ship in F14, does it make sense to have a few apps (but not many) ported to GTK+ 3 for F14? I can see it causing more trouble along the lines of the gnome-python2-desktop package. Would it be better to move them back to GTK+ 2 and postpone porting to GTK+ 3 until F15? What's the plan in general for backing off from 2.90.x versions of GNOME bits? Thanks!
With the disabling of gnome-python2-evince the sugar team has an issue with our sugar-read package which depends on it.
Yeah, I noticed that, but I didn't see any good option to avoid it; if we don't rebuild g-p2-d and disable evince, it won't work *at all*, since it'll still be built against py2.6 :/
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 16:46 +0100, pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, folks. Just a question - since GNOME 3 is being delayed and won't ship in F14, does it make sense to have a few apps (but not many) ported to GTK+ 3 for F14? I can see it causing more trouble along the lines of the gnome-python2-desktop package. Would it be better to move them back to GTK+ 2 and postpone porting to GTK+ 3 until F15? What's the plan in general for backing off from 2.90.x versions of GNOME bits? Thanks!
With the disabling of gnome-python2-evince the sugar team has an issue with our sugar-read package which depends on it.
Yeah, I noticed that, but I didn't see any good option to avoid it; if we don't rebuild g-p2-d and disable evince, it won't work *at all*, since it'll still be built against py2.6 :/
I can cope in the short term. As long as its fixed eventually before release!
Peter
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 16:55 +0100, pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 16:46 +0100, pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, folks. Just a question - since GNOME 3 is being delayed and won't ship in F14, does it make sense to have a few apps (but not many) ported to GTK+ 3 for F14? I can see it causing more trouble along the lines of the gnome-python2-desktop package. Would it be better to move them back to GTK+ 2 and postpone porting to GTK+ 3 until F15? What's the plan in general for backing off from 2.90.x versions of GNOME bits? Thanks!
With the disabling of gnome-python2-evince the sugar team has an issue with our sugar-read package which depends on it.
Yeah, I noticed that, but I didn't see any good option to avoid it; if we don't rebuild g-p2-d and disable evince, it won't work *at all*, since it'll still be built against py2.6 :/
I can cope in the short term. As long as its fixed eventually before release!
I don't think you'll see a fixed version for F14. Somebody is going to have to bite the bullet and port the application as it should be.
Not knowing the details, I'm afraid I can't give a more precise help, but whether it's broken now or in 6 months, somebody will have to do the work...
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 08:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks. Just a question - since GNOME 3 is being delayed and won't ship in F14, does it make sense to have a few apps (but not many) ported to GTK+ 3 for F14? I can see it causing more trouble along the lines of the gnome-python2-desktop package. Would it be better to move them back to GTK+ 2 and postpone porting to GTK+ 3 until F15? What's the plan in general for backing off from 2.90.x versions of GNOME bits? Thanks!
I discussed this with Richard Hughes, and a number of other people at GUADEC, and the current plan is to ship what's already ported, and to make sure that what wasn't ported works as expected.
This will obviously need to be discussed with Matthias, who has a better idea of how we want to spend our time for F14, and whether a GTK+ 3.x pre-release dependency is a good idea.
The short version is: - ship what we have already ported - spend time polishing the control-center and other ported applications - ship most of 2.32 for the rest of the desktop
This would be a restrictive schedule for us, but for most applications we would have support from upstream (or are the upstream).
Cheers
On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 22:33 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 08:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks. Just a question - since GNOME 3 is being delayed and won't ship in F14, does it make sense to have a few apps (but not many) ported to GTK+ 3 for F14? I can see it causing more trouble along the lines of the gnome-python2-desktop package. Would it be better to move them back to GTK+ 2 and postpone porting to GTK+ 3 until F15? What's the plan in general for backing off from 2.90.x versions of GNOME bits? Thanks!
I discussed this with Richard Hughes, and a number of other people at GUADEC, and the current plan is to ship what's already ported, and to make sure that what wasn't ported works as expected.
This will obviously need to be discussed with Matthias, who has a better idea of how we want to spend our time for F14, and whether a GTK+ 3.x pre-release dependency is a good idea.
GTK3 is not scary or difficult by itself, and porting to it goes module by module, so there is no strong reason to roll back everything for modules that are working fine. And we have successfully dealt with a number of the wide-spread libraries that are linked against gtk, either by removing the gtk dependency or by making a parallel-installable version: libnotify, libunique, gnome-desktop, gtksourceview, webkitgtk.
There are some more gtk-using libraries that need to be handled, but the hard problems are around pygtk and the widespread use of python throughout the desktop.
I have not yet had time to fully understand how the proposed 2.32 plans to handle these problems, so I don't have a final proposal for F14 yet, beyond moving the Gnome3 feature to F15.
I'll try to get a clearer picture of 2.32 tomorrow.
On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 22:16 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I have not yet had time to fully understand how the proposed 2.32 plans to handle these problems, so I don't have a final proposal for F14 yet, beyond moving the Gnome3 feature to F15.
I'll try to get a clearer picture of 2.32 tomorrow.
After talking to fellow GNOME release team members a bit, it seems that the plan for 2.32 is to make everything build with GTK+ 2.x (since there will be no GTK3 yet), so this is what I recommend we should do, now that F14 has been branched off:
- Rebuild everything against gtk2. In some cases this may have to wait for an upstream version with a --with-gtk=2/3 configure option.
- In cases where we updated our packages to a 2.90 version that will not be part of 2.32 (and thus may not get a --with-gtk=2 switch), we will have to introduce epochs and back down to 2.31.x versions.
- Wrt. to GConf > GSettings migration, I'm still a bit in the unclear, but it seems that the control-center is likely going to push ahead with getting that completed for 2.32.
Comments ?
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Bastien Nocera -
Matthias Clasen -
Peter Robinson