gnome-vfs not in Rawhide?

John Thacker thacker at math.cornell.edu
Tue Apr 5 19:42:03 UTC 2005


On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:14:55PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> 
> What else deps on gtk+ 1.X?
> 
> Things in extras? 
> is gtk+ even being maintained upstream anymore? Seems like a good
> candidate for going to extras then, doesn't it?

Since I run one of my machines without gtk+ (which makes for a good test)
I know that there are things in extras like easytag (since Extras hasn't
moved to the quite-stable-but-still-officially development 1.99.3 version),
plus outside things like mplayer.

The other, slightly nastier problem:  Several packages allow one to
build with either gtk+ or gtk2.  In Core, we're building with gtk2,
but these packages have to BuildRequire: gtk+-devel, which pulls in
the rest of the gtk+ stuff, in order to compile.  This is because the
various auto* scripts pull in gtk+ macros.  I *think* there are some
packages still like this in Core; I know I've run into it in the last
couple months, and have gotten used to pulling in gtk+ in order to
build, then removing it, when I want to rebuild a package.

There are also a couple other packages that incorrectly still
BuildRequire various gtk+ things even after having moved to gtk2,
but the gtk+ things are no longer needed.  w3m is a case of this;
it just moved to gtk2, but still BuildRequires imlib-devel instead
of imlib2-devel.  (I guess imlib2-devel is needed, haven't tested
trying to build without it installed, but it definitely builds with
imlib2-devel but not imlib-devel if I change the spec file.)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=153773

John Thacker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050405/8e0af99a/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list