Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Last rites: app-admin/gkrellm & plugins
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 16:27:09
Message-Id: 2682973.mvXUDI8C0e@wstn
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Last rites: app-admin/gkrellm & plugins by Jack
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.