Subject: Re: Updating GTK+ to 2.8 - some doubts
To: Rene Hexel <email@example.com>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/02/2005 00:03:54
On 10/1/05, Rene Hexel <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 02/10/2005, at 12:08 AM, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> > The only issue I can see is that new binary packages must ensure
> > that they
> > require gtk 2.8. Thus one needs to bump BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED to
> > 2.8.0. Is it? Or is it BUILDLINK_DEPENDS?
> BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED should be fine. This takes care of all
> binaries that are uploaded onto the FTP server. If somebody
> overrides BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED and builds their binaries from
> source, linking should work correctly, regardless of which version of
> gtk they currently have installed.
> > If bumping the recommended version, do we need to bump revisions
> > for all
> > packages using gtk2? This is scary.
> If the binaries don't have to be rebuilt (i.e., if old binaries
> link nicely against gtk+-2.8), then I don't think that's necessary.
Aha. This seems good enough then. I'll hold this on until tomorrow in
case someone else wants to reply.
> > Or maybe we'd "fix" pkg-config to not list internal libraries on those
> > platforms that do not require it?
> I would make that independent of gtk+. Changing pkg-config can
> have far-reaching consequences (and identifying which OS/hardware/
> compiler combinations require linking against internal libraries
> might be tricky). In the long run, this is probably worth thinking
> about, but for the gtk update, the side effects would probably be too
Indeed. I've sent a mail to the pkg-config mailing list explaining
the problem to see their thoughts.
Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/