Thanks everyone for the good input. I think this thread convinced me
to keep the gtk2 support.
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Yeah. To be clear this affects sugar-build *only*. Distributions will keep
> shipping the gtk2 stuff as far as I know.
I think it would be worth leaving it there primarily to ensure things
don't break. The recent catch with sugar-datastore
For me, is better keep the gtk2 support enabled.
I use sugar-devel, but work with Gtk3 activities and Gtk2 activities too,
because we didn't finished with all the ports yet.
Gonzalo
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm planning to drop gtk2 support and I'm giv
Are you talking about that Sugar-build isn't going to build anymore
sugar-toolkit-gtk2?
The Gtk2 environment/dependencies are generally pre-installed on
standard systems. Not in mini-distros, but it's not the case of Fedora
and Ubuntu.
I agree in that a build from sources isn't appropiated when nob
Yeah. To be clear this affects sugar-build *only*. Distributions will keep
shipping the gtk2 stuff as far as I know.
On Friday, 16 November 2012, Walter Bender wrote:
> So the idea is that gtk2 apps won't run any more?
>
> -walter
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez
> >
> wrote:
So the idea is that gtk2 apps won't run any more?
-walter
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm planning to drop gtk2 support and I'm giving a warning about it in
> advance, in case someone has concerns about it. I just think
> sugar-build is a development tool
Hello,
I'm planning to drop gtk2 support and I'm giving a warning about it in
advance, in case someone has concerns about it. I just think
sugar-build is a development tool and no one should be developing on
gtk2 anymore... (if not for minimal maintenance stuff, but that
doesn't probably need suga
7 matches
Mail list logo
