Raise dependency versions of GLib, Pango and GTK+

Chris Shoemaker c.shoemaker at cox.net
Fri Jan 19 10:26:31 EST 2007

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:42:13PM -0500, Josh Sled wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 12:58 +0100, Andreas Köhler wrote:
> > currently the code base depends on GLib >= 2.4, Pango >= 1.6 and GTK+ >=
> > 2.4. I would like to propose higher base versions, at least for GLib,
> > better for all three of them.
> [deletia]
> > There might be other reasons, like removing the burden to check whether
> > a GLib/Gtk 2.6 feature is worth single-casing it. What do you think?
> Yeah, we should treat them as a triple...
> I updated README.dependencies with the status of a catch-all "gtk+"
> verison number (from distrowatch) for the last two releases of the top 5
> distros.
> Assuming we get 2.2 out the door in April, that means the 6 month
> dependency window is October 2006 ... which is about when Ubuntu,
> Mandriva and Fedora Core last released ... Suse was in December, and
> Debian just doesn't work that way.
> In any case, gtk 2.8 seems acceptable, and gtk+-2.10 is almost in there
> (except for Suse).
> So, should we go to 2.6, or 2.8?  I say 2.8. RHEL4 users have
> gnucash-2.0.4 to get them by, and we're not really helping them by
> restricting ourselves to 2.6 if they're still on 2.4.

I'd suggest bumping to 2.6 for now.  If it turns out that we really start
wishing we had 2.8 then we can reconsider at then.  I didn't see any
new-in-2.8 symbols that seemed that compelling, but time will tell.


More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list