1 |
On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 15:28 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> last time i recall following the gtk/gtk2 stuff, the idea was that in the |
3 |
> future to move to a gtk/gtk1 situation ... but this was back when Spider was |
4 |
> The Man, so i guess people forgot about that |
5 |
|
6 |
That was never the case. We actually saw the gtk2 flag only as a |
7 |
transitional tool during the initial release of gnome 2, too bad it |
8 |
stuck around as long as it did. |
9 |
|
10 |
> > it should be more the question, if there's anyone supporting |
11 |
> > Gtk1 upstream with regards to security issues etc.. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> and when such a situation arises, the solution may to simply drop the optional |
14 |
> support. such a situation has not arose, so using such hypothetical examples |
15 |
> is meaningless. |
16 |
|
17 |
Already security related issues have been dropped by upstream for the |
18 |
simple reason that it hasn't been maintained since the day gtk went |
19 |
2.0 . The only reason there has been some minimal support are the bling |
20 |
distros like RH and the fact that Debian was stuck in the stone age. |
21 |
Let's be realistic, if an application hasn't been ported to gtk+-2 yet |
22 |
it is not maintained or it is an internal to some commercial business. |
23 |
|
24 |
I don't think gtk 1 will leave the tree soon, but at least we can try to |
25 |
make it unneeded on most users systems. |
26 |
|
27 |
- foser |