[Gtk-sharp-list] Versioning and Unstable Gtk#
tberman at off.net
Mon Jul 11 01:06:29 EDT 2005
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 23:02 -0400, Ben Maurer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 18:59 -0700, Todd Berman wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 21:31 -0400, Ben Maurer wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > I've been working with tseng, our fearless Ubuntu packager on packaging
> > > Gtk# 2 apps. It looks like we are pretty clearly not going to be api
> > > frozen soon enough to make it a good idea to ship Gtk# 2 in the GAC.
> > >
> > > So, I suggested that we include a pre-release gtk# in the private bin
> > > path for gtk# 2 apps (muine and monodevelop). However, when I was
> > > thinking about this, I realized we had a little problem.
> > This is the worst solution you could ever come up with to this problem.
> > I have an idea. How about ubuntu ships what is the latest release at
> > that time and we go from that. If people just stick to the stuff in
> > ubuntu's repo, then they are fine, and if people start using the latest
> > gtk#, then obviously they are going to need to use the most recent
> > version of its various consuming applications. Such is the suck of
> > riding along the newer development lines.
> It'd be best that Gtk# (and mono) not obtain a reputation as fragile and
> for causing breakage on upgrades.
> Shipping with a non-api stable version of a library -- especially one
> that has the same name as and is not parallel installable with the
> stable version -- in the gac *WILL* cause confusion at best and breakage
> at worse. Problems here may be hard to detect -- Applications compiled
> against the stable gtk# 2 will happily load the beta version that will
> ship with ubuntu. When a method can't be found, the user will get a
> strange runtime assert.
Where are people getting this mythical applications from is my question.
Oh right, the ubuntu repository. the same one that sanely ships things
build against same versions.
Source compiles will fail, which would happen regardless.
> > I dont really see any of this as a 'big' deal, Ubuntu will ship another
> > release in 6 months.
> Yeah, lets just allow stuff to silently break because we don't want to
> deal with the version policies we promote
I don't think anything will silently break.
> > All 3 of your hackish solutions add *permanent* issues we will have to
> > deal with, where as just dealing with the suck, the issues go away in 6
> > months.
> I'm not sure how these add permanent issues. My first suggestion
> (changing the version only on unstable releases) is *exactly* the same
> as what we are doing now once we do a stable release. Nobody should
> expect a binary built against a beta version to work on the final
> version, this just strictly enforces that. The second solution has some
> permanent ramifications for gtk#, however, these may be things we
> actually want, and is much more inline with what MSFT seems to promote.
> My third solution is a bit more radical.
Ok, sorry, so #2 and #3 add permanent issues, and #1 is just plain wank,
as anything that attempts to use the assembly version (like, say, a
MonoDevelop project) will break all the time.
> > I am not confident that we will see another MonoDevelop release until
> > the stable gtk# release regardless, so 0.7 is what would be current at
> > that time anyway.
> > Just as an aside, no MonoDevelop that ships a internal gtk# or a weirdly
> > versioned gtk# through any means will ever be supported. As in, don't
> > file your bugs with us, because that is not a sane way to deploy any
> > application, especially a development environment.
> Well, if MD loads gtk# from its private bin path, there is no reason it
> should ever know the difference. Of course, this makes it hard for MD to
> build gtk# 2.0 apps. However, I think it would be silly for us to ship
> Ubuntu with an MD that encourged people to build gtk# 2.0 apps -- the
> apps that somebody built with that version would very likely break on
> the final gtk#. IMHO, the MD that ships with ubuntu should have no pre
> defined projects for gtk# 2.0 apps -- regardless of if a beta of gtk#
> 2.0 is in the gac. It should promote the use of gtk# 1.0.
Which isn't even possible due to bugs in gtk# and mono (last time I
So yeah, it won't be supported.
I think it is silly for Ubuntu to ship gtk# 2.0 at all if these concerns
are an issue. MonoDevelop 0.7 should not be shipped under any
circumstances in this fashion. Muine may make more sense with private
But seriously, having all this back and forth over two apps is just not
This is an Ubuntu concern more than anything else, and tseng should
resolve it however he wants, instead of enforcing upstream problems.
More information about the Gtk-sharp-list