Re: Gtk+4.0

2016-07-09 Thread Peter Weber
Hi! On Sat, 2016-07-09 at 19:06 +, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm expecting this will become less and less of a problem as apps move > to Flatpak as a means of distribution. Uhuuu. I'm sorry, but this is bad. This mixes two completely different problems together, packaging and a

Re: Gtk+4.0

2016-07-09 Thread Jasper St. Pierre
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:36 PM, wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:13 PM Jasper St. Pierre > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:06 PM, wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:30 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort < >>>

Re: Gtk+4.0

2016-07-09 Thread philip . chimento
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:13 PM Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:06 PM, wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:30 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote:

Re: Gtk+4.0

2016-07-09 Thread philip . chimento
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:06 PM wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:30 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote: >> > I don't see here an active discussion about Gtk+4.0[1]? So I'm trying to >> > write

Re: Gtk+4.0

2016-07-09 Thread Jasper St. Pierre
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:06 PM, wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:30 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote: >> > I don't see here an active discussion about Gtk+4.0[1]? So I'm trying to >> > write

Re: Gtk+4.0

2016-07-09 Thread philip . chimento
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:30 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Hi, > > On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote: > > I don't see here an active discussion about Gtk+4.0[1]? So I'm trying to > > write about my thoughts, in a careful way. In the first moment, I thought > > this is