1 |
On Saturday, 28 January 2023 16:08:04 GMT Jack wrote: |
2 |
> On 1/28/23 05:35, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
3 |
> > On Saturday, 28 January 2023 09:17:35 GMT Michael wrote: |
4 |
> >> Since my coding ability is even worse than Dale's I join him in kindly |
5 |
> >> asking for a maintainer/dev to take it on and keep it running. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > I too am finding it hard to imagine life without gkrellm. I think it needs |
8 |
> > more than just a maintainer though - it needs a replacement for upstream |
9 |
> > as well. |
10 |
> I"m actually the one who first heard that the original maintainer had |
11 |
> died. (I had written to him about some support issue, and got a belated |
12 |
> reply from his brother.) Upstream is not dead at all, the activity |
13 |
> level is just fairly low. I tried to post to -dev, but my message never |
14 |
> got through, not sure if it's because I'm not a dev or I made some other |
15 |
> error in sending. The homepage is at htttps://gkrellm.srcbox.net with |
16 |
> source at https://git.srcbox.net/gkrellm/gkrellm. |
17 |
|
18 |
My mistake. It's so long since I heard anything that I thought it must have |
19 |
died with Bill. |
20 |
|
21 |
> The main problem is that is still uses gtk+2. They do have an open |
22 |
> issue about that, but most of the discussion has been on why it would be |
23 |
> so hard to upgrade. There is apparently a lot of fairly low-level |
24 |
> graphics stuff going on, and Bill himself (the original maintainer) said |
25 |
> something like the conversion to gkt+3 would be difficult, but to go to |
26 |
> gtk+4 (I have no idea how far off this is) would essentially be a re-write. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Jack |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Regards, |
33 |
Peter. |