| 1 |
Hanno Böck wrote: |
| 2 |
> > "It does mean, however, that GTK 2 has reached the end of its life. |
| 3 |
> > We will do one final 2.x release in the coming days, and we encourage |
| 4 |
> > everybody to port their GTK 2 applications to GTK 3 or 4." |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I read that as there will be one more gtk2 release and none after that. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This seems to imply: |
| 9 |
> * When there's a security flaw in gtk2 there won't be a fix from |
| 10 |
> upstream. |
| 11 |
> * When there's an incompatibility with new infrastructure (e.g. new gcc |
| 12 |
> version / new glibc / changing API of libraries gtk depends on) there |
| 13 |
> will be no updates from upstream. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This means in all those instances maintainers will have to get patches |
| 16 |
> from somewhere. We'll likely end up with some form of |
| 17 |
> gtk-2.x-r[largenumber] with a large patchset at some point. |
| 18 |
> Maintaining that will be an increasing burden. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> No urgency, but a sign to slowly move off gtk2. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Until there's a relevant flaw that will remain unfixed or there is |
| 23 |
significant incompatibility with infrastructure (recurse my argument) |
| 24 |
no signs actually exist. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Assuming that there will be a significant maintenance burden which |
| 27 |
affects all uses doesn't seem rational - hence my question. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The blog post shouldn't be misunderstood. The intended audience seems |
| 30 |
to be application developers, encouraging them to port applications, |
| 31 |
not so much distributions. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Distributions quite often overlook that they wield much power, and |
| 34 |
thus also have much responsibility. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Of course, GTK maintainers in Gentoo choose what to work on, and have |
| 37 |
made many (only?) excellent choices. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I'm merely pleading for rational choices based on actual problems. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
//Peter |
Archives