There's at least a few project that will not work with new wxGTK, out of what I know that is in tree the SuperSlicer and the PrusaSlicer that in the version currently in tree requires wxGTK 3.0. The newer version of PrusaSlicer actually requires wxGTK 3.1 and does not work well with 3.2, unless the wxGTK 3.2 is built with '--disable-glcanvasegl', but this is not interfaced as USE flag and I doubt ever will be.Yes, surely there are projects which work with 3.0 but not 3.2. But most projects will, probably, just work with 3.2. I've just switched 2 projects
Hello *,
wxGTK:3.2-gtk3 is now stable. But there are 98 ebuilds depending on wxGTK:3.0-gtk3 and only 22 ebuilds depending on wxGTK:3.2-gtk3 in the
tree. Probably, in a vast majority of cases 3.0 can be simply replaced
by 3.2 without any negative consequences. What could be a reasonable way
to organize the transition 3.0 -> 3.2 in the tree? File a zillion bugs?
The fact that this dependence is written in a special syntax WX_GTK_VER="3.0-gtk3"
makes such a transition more difficult. Unlike the normal dependency
syntax, it is not possible to write something like
x11-libs/wxGTK:*=
This is unfortunate. The 3.0 -> 3.2 transition absolutely requires to
edit ebuild texts, unlike :*= where the same ebuild can work with
different slots (just a recompilation is sufficient for transition).
This fact makes it impossible for an ebuild to work with both slots. In
a majority of cases, I suppose, it would be desirable to allow an ebuild
to work with any of these 2 slots, without a necessity to edit it. But,
alas, this is not possible.
Andrey
Hello *,
wxGTK:3.2-gtk3 is now stable. But there are 98 ebuilds depending on wxGTK:3.0-gtk3 and only 22 ebuilds depending on wxGTK:3.2-gtk3 in the
tree. Probably, in a vast majority of cases 3.0 can be simply
replaced by
3.2 without any negative consequences. What could be a reasonable way
to
organize the transition 3.0 -> 3.2 in the tree? File a zillion bugs?
The fact that this dependence is written in a special syntax WX_GTK_VER="3.0-gtk3"
makes such a transition more difficult. Unlike the normal dependency
syntax, it is not possible to write something like
x11-libs/wxGTK:*=
This is unfortunate. The 3.0 -> 3.2 transition absolutely requires to
edit
ebuild texts, unlike :*= where the same ebuild can work with
different
slots (just a recompilation is sufficient for transition). This fact
makes it impossible for an ebuild to work with both slots. In a
majority
of cases, I suppose, it would be desirable to allow an ebuild to work
with
any of these 2 slots, without a necessity to edit it. But, alas, this
is
not possible.
Hello *,
wxGTK:3.2-gtk3 is now stable. But there are 98 ebuilds depending on wxGTK:3.0-gtk3 and only 22 ebuilds depending on wxGTK:3.2-gtk3 in the
tree. Probably, in a vast majority of cases 3.0 can be simply replaced by 3.2 without any negative consequences. What could be a reasonable way to organize the transition 3.0 -> 3.2 in the tree? File a zillion bugs?
The fact that this dependence is written in a special syntax WX_GTK_VER="3.0-gtk3"
makes such a transition more difficult. Unlike the normal dependency
syntax, it is not possible to write something like
x11-libs/wxGTK:*=
This is unfortunate. The 3.0 -> 3.2 transition absolutely requires to edit ebuild texts, unlike :*= where the same ebuild can work with different
slots (just a recompilation is sufficient for transition). This fact
makes it impossible for an ebuild to work with both slots. In a majority
of cases, I suppose, it would be desirable to allow an ebuild to work with any of these 2 slots, without a necessity to edit it. But, alas, this is
not possible.
Andrey
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 493 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 149:36:25 |
Calls: | 9,699 |
Calls today: | 9 |
Files: | 13,732 |
Messages: | 6,178,834 |
Posted today: | 1 |