Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
Reitter: Answering the question: "How do I develop an app for GNOME?"
Posted Feb 5, 2013 20:56 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Why bother ask such a question?
Posted Feb 6, 2013 9:19 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
Posted Feb 6, 2013 14:46 UTC (Wed) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Posted Feb 6, 2013 15:17 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
While there are programs written against GTK+ 1.x which needed porting work to 2.x, and some (such as my former preferred web browser, Dillo) which were 'lost' to the GTK+ world in this way, that's not really a fair point to make in a comparison against Qt because Qt 1.x is equally obsolete.
So I take back what I wrote; I really meant to defend Qt as having a good backwards-compatibility track record, rather than denigrate GTK+ and GNOME.
Posted Feb 6, 2013 15:33 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
Certainly, lots of people still seem to develop against Qt (despite Nokia trying to eliminate the business of supporting and developing it sustainably), and backwards-compatibility has a lot to do with that, alongside a long track-record of support for the technology actually being available.
Posted Feb 6, 2013 19:33 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Posted Feb 7, 2013 9:17 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Posted Feb 7, 2013 6:29 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
I mentioned it before here: https://lwn.net/Articles/526428/
Posted Feb 7, 2013 9:16 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
We then changed the major version many years later.
Only *now* you're having difficulties only because your distribution does not ship the library anymore. In your other comment you suggest that somehow there are conflicts between the 2.x libraries and the 3.x. That is not the case, please show where it is.
From what I can gather, you're only running into difficulties building libraries. That your distribution does not ship this library anymore (mainly because all maintained programs did move over to gvfs) does not imply backwards compatibility was broken.
Posted Feb 7, 2013 9:32 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
I mention this not to dispute your point that GNOME maintains binary compatibility in libraries, but to provide a data-point that suggests that this is not sufficient for functional compatibility from the users' point of view. GNOME developers could look into that and see if anything could be done, if they felt it important.
Posted Feb 7, 2013 15:58 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
That's not the world we live in though, user space, long term compatibility isn't the biggest priority.
Posted Feb 6, 2013 9:36 UTC (Wed) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978)
Posted Feb 6, 2013 16:47 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Feb 6, 2013 1:08 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137)
Posted Feb 6, 2013 3:16 UTC (Wed) by Sho (subscriber, #8956)
Posted Feb 6, 2013 13:35 UTC (Wed) by macson_g (subscriber, #12717)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds