2009/3/10 Mikhael Goikhman <[email protected]>: > On 09 Mar 2009 23:16:21 +0000, Thomas Adam wrote: >> >> 2009/3/9 Mikhael Goikhman <[email protected]>: >> > On 09 Mar 2009 10:21:05 -0500, Jonathan Kotta wrote: >> >> >> >> I use Ubuntu, and use `make deb-inplace` to build fvwm .debs. Nothing >> >> in my system needs libgtk1.x, and I can imagine many people could say >> >> the same. Should fvwm get rid of this dependency? >> > >> > This question is actually two. Whether we should have FvwmGtk (I think, >> > yes). And whether libgtk1 should be forced for deb generation (I think, >> > no, it should ideally be synced with ./configure detection). >> >> I say we drop it -- no one uses FvwmGTK anymore. No one has bothered >> or felt the urge to port it to use GTK2. > > I don't know whether this is a good reason to remove this module. > Noone felt urge to do many things in fvwm. This is the chicken and egg > question. An idea to have a full GTK integration seems nice (menus, > dialogs). Possibly even more appealing to me than an idea to have module > managed window decorations. My position is although I don't use a lot of > features in fvwm, I would not suggest to break or remove anything. > At least without showing what is gained by this. And giving enough time > in advance to notify all potential users.
Sure -- but you're missing the point somewhat: GTK1 isn't supported anymore. Most distributions have stopped their dependencies with it, and those apps which used GTK1 have been ported over to GTK2. So until that happens here with FvwmGTK, it's going to be a dead duck, unless those people who *really* want it somehow retrosactively seek out the now "old" GTK libraries. It's deprecated almost through (in this case) lack of association which is a shame since it is a potential piece of dead code until something is done about it. -- Thomas Adam
