Greetings.
I just orphaned gdk-pixbuf in pkgdb.
It failed the mass rebuild, not much left that depends on it, and nothing I need. ;)
% repoquery --source --whatrequires gdk-pixbuf gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-38.fc12.src.rpm gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-38.fc12.src.rpm gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-38.fc12.src.rpm gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-38.fc12.src.rpm soundtracker-0.6.8-8.fc12.src.rpm xosd-2.2.14-13.fc12.src.rpm
So, if anyone really really really wants to keep it alive, feel free to take it and fix it so it builds and works. ;)
kevin
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 13:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I just orphaned gdk-pixbuf in pkgdb.
It failed the mass rebuild, not much left that depends on it, and nothing I need. ;)
[...]
soundtracker-0.6.8-8.fc12.src.rpm
Soundtracker can be built without gdk-pixbuf. I will do just that if it shows to still run without obvious segfaults or anything similar.
Uli
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 13:01 +0100, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 13:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I just orphaned gdk-pixbuf in pkgdb.
It failed the mass rebuild, not much left that depends on it, and nothing I need. ;)
[...]
soundtracker-0.6.8-8.fc12.src.rpm
Soundtracker can be built without gdk-pixbuf. I will do just that if it shows to still run without obvious segfaults or anything similar.
I have just built updated soundtracker packages without gdk-pixbuf for f13, f14, f15, rawhide and requested bodhi updates for f13, f14, f15.
The GUI regressions are slight - not enough to warrant me starting to maintain gdk-pixbuf in any case.
This leaves the following as the one remaining package requiring gdk-pixbuf:
xosd-2.2.14-13.fc12.src.rpm
Kevin Fenzi wrote about gdk-pixbuf:
It failed the mass rebuild, not much left that depends on it, and nothing I need. ;)
[...]
So, if anyone really really really wants to keep it alive, feel free to take it and fix it so it builds and works. ;)
I use gdk-pixbuf in an application that is used on Fedora but for licensing reasons can't currently be submitted as a Fedora package. I'd hate to see gdk-pixbuf go away, as I don't know what I could use to replace it. I've never looked at building gdk-pixbuf myself, and have never been able to wrap my head around autotools, so if the cause of the FTBFS isn't obvious, I doubt that I can fix it quickly. I'm not going to commit to taking maintainership of the package right now, but if nobody else does and I find the time to deal with it, perhaps I will in the future.
As far as I can tell, gdk-pixbuf hasn't been deprecated upstream; there was a new release in August. Has anyone notified upstream about the FTBFS?
Eric
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote about gdk-pixbuf: > It failed the mass rebuild, not much left that depends on it, and > nothing I need. ;) [...]
So, if anyone really really really wants to keep it alive, feel free to take it and fix it so it builds and works. ;)
I use gdk-pixbuf in an application that is used on Fedora but for licensing reasons can't currently be submitted as a Fedora package. I'd hate to see gdk-pixbuf go away, as I don't know what I could use to replace it. I've never looked at building gdk-pixbuf myself, and have never been able to wrap my head around autotools, so if the cause of the FTBFS isn't obvious, I doubt that I can fix it quickly. I'm not going to commit to taking maintainership of the package right now, but if nobody else does and I find the time to deal with it, perhaps I will in the future.
As far as I can tell, gdk-pixbuf hasn't been deprecated upstream; there was a new release in August. Has anyone notified upstream about the FTBFS?
Are you sure your not referring to gdk-pixbuf2?
Peter
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 23:17:02 +0000 Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Eric Smith eric@brouhaha.com wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote about gdk-pixbuf: > It failed the mass rebuild, not much left that depends on it, and > nothing I need. ;) [...]
So, if anyone really really really wants to keep it alive, feel free to take it and fix it so it builds and works. ;)
I use gdk-pixbuf in an application that is used on Fedora but for licensing reasons can't currently be submitted as a Fedora package. I'd hate to see gdk-pixbuf go away, as I don't know what I could use to replace it. I've never looked at building gdk-pixbuf myself, and have never been able to wrap my head around autotools, so if the cause of the FTBFS isn't obvious, I doubt that I can fix it quickly. I'm not going to commit to taking maintainership of the package right now, but if nobody else does and I find the time to deal with it, perhaps I will in the future.
As far as I can tell, gdk-pixbuf hasn't been deprecated upstream; there was a new release in August. Has anyone notified upstream about the FTBFS?
Are you sure your not referring to gdk-pixbuf2?
I really suspect so.
the gdk-pixbuf package is the gtk+ one in fedora. it's last release was december 2002.
yes, thats right, almost exactly 9 years ago. ;)
kevin
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 15:25 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Are you sure your not referring to gdk-pixbuf2?
I really suspect so.
the gdk-pixbuf package is the gtk+ one in fedora. it's last release was december 2002.
Yes, gdk-pixbuf2 is not going away.
gdk-pixbuf is the gtk1-era incarnation and not really used by anything anymore.
-
Eric Smith -
Hans Ulrich Niedermann -
Kevin Fenzi -
Matthias Clasen -
Peter Robinson -
Ville Skyttä