Am 13.03.22 um 22:18 schrieb Thomas Haller:
On Sun, 2022-03-13 at 16:01 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:

Am 13.03.22 um 12:46 schrieb Thomas Haller:
On Sat, 2022-03-12 at 21:55 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:


yes. I think it's fine. is there a problem?

You cannot load gtk3 and gtk4 in the same application, and
consequently, you cannot load (gtk3) and libnma-gtk4

libnma is a GUI library based on GTK. It seems not unreasonable
the GTK version is part of the library name -- in particular, as
might come GTK5 in the future.

These are really two different libraries (with very similar API and
same underlying sources).

I see the necessity and maybe this is just bike shedding on my side
I'd personally prefer the gtk part being dropped, so the soname
And correspondingly libnma-4.pc (libnma4.pc would be fine as well).

Or do we have some prior art where the gtkX string is encoded in the
library soname?

I also find it a bit inconsistent that the gobject instrospection
do not have GTK string embedded.


I tend to agree.

but it might be too late for that... even if it was announced as
experimental :)

Lubomir, wdyt?

Could we have some definitive answer if the naming is going to stay?
I have a request in Debian to enable gtk4 support in libnma but before doing that, I'd like to have an answer here first.

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

networkmanager-list mailing list

Reply via email to