Is there anything I should know to replace GnomeDruid with GtkAssistant?
janssens-geert at telenet.be
Fri Jul 2 12:21:59 EDT 2010
On Friday 2 July 2010, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> writes:
> > Christian Stimming <stimming at tuhh.de> writes:
> >> thanks for this research. To me, this sounds like it would require
> >> significant efforts to get back into a source code state that compiles
> >> on CentOS 5.5. IMHO this effort gives only very little gain. Hence,
> >> IMHO we should acknowledge that our support of this distro has been
> >> dropped already, and hence we should increase our required gtk et al
> >> versions accordingly.
> > What I don't get is why people who are running these "long-term stable"
> > releases that intentionally have old versions of software expect to run
> > new versions of some other kinds of software. I don't do anything
> > useful for gnucash, so there's no reason to listen to me, but why does
> > anybody care if the current gnucash version works on stable/old systems?
> It's a reaction to the early 1.x days of gnucash where you needed a
> bleeding-edge system in order to build/install/run GnuCash 1.6 when it
> was released. If you had a system older than, oh, 6 months (maybe it
> was 3?) you couldn't build 1.6 on it. Obviously there was a lot of user
> crying and flack to the developers for releasing code that couldn't be
> used unless you were running Debian unstable.
> As a result we (well, I think I instigated it and got buy-in from the
> majority of developers) suggested a policy of not releasing anything
> that required a dependency newer that 1 year old. I.e., you should be
> able to take a system you installed a year ago and install a fresh
> release of GnuCash on it.
> We created this policy almost a decade ago. At the time, the longest
> long-term release was Debian, at about 18-24 months between "stable"
> releases. In the interim, however, RHEL seems to have extended that to
> about 4 years between major releases. At least, I think RHEL 5 was
> released somewhere around 2006? I think it was based off FC6 which was
> 4 years ago. Or was RHEL 5 == FC3? I don't remember anymore.
> In any event, the lack of a RHEL refresh has changed the game some, so
> yeah, I think it's time to re-evaluate our policy some. The problem, of
> course, is that RHEL 5.5 hasn't changed the version of gtk
> significantly. So even though it was only recently "released", it
> hasn't updated the dependencies.
> I still maintain that users should not be forced to be running Debian
> unstable in order to build/install GnuCash.
That makes sense to me as well.
What RHEL is concerned, I think users of RHEL5 will probably be ok with
GnuCash 2.2.9. It fits the stable-and-conservative strategy of that distro.
I do agree on a middleground for selecting dependencies. Debian still seems to
be the reference for conservative package choice.
More information about the gnucash-devel