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