| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 10 November 2006 16:28, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 08:56 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Ok, the list definitely isn't accurate. If there is a legitimate reason |
| 7 |
>>> to mask sylpheed-claws-1.x you also have to mask it's reverse deps. |
| 8 |
>>> However I'm still waiting for the explanation why it is on that list. |
| 9 |
>>> (I don't mind if it's masked for a good reason, but I need to know |
| 10 |
>>> that reason). |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> There is no immediate reason, of course. However, gtk+-1 and glib-1 |
| 13 |
>> will be removed as soon after the big cleanup as is feasible, and |
| 14 |
>> sylpheed-clasws-1.x is a gtk+-1 app, and therefore must go as well. I |
| 15 |
>> didn't generate the list, but my understanding was that it was intended |
| 16 |
>> to include all packages with a hard dep on gtk+-1, in addition to gnome |
| 17 |
>> 1.x. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Gtk1 actually is broken for --as-needed. It's linking is broken thanks to a |
| 21 |
> libtool which refuses to link against a non-installed libgdk. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
I think gtk+-1.2.10-r12 solved this problem. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Hope you guys aren't seriously considering dropping gtk+1. As long as we |
| 27 |
have packages that depend on it (packages that has nothing to do with |
| 28 |
gnome herd/team), gtk+1 should stay in the tree. |
Archives