FYI, Maciej, you are missing a piece of information from your decision-making process.<br>Happily, as the package release manager since "the dawn of time", I can provide the missing piece for you :-)<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:maciej@opencsw.org">maciej@opencsw.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Yes, the specific case. The reasoning goes like this: There's the<br>
_gtk2 package. It essentially contains shared libraries[1], plus a<br>
header file and a few scripts. The other two are the common package,<br>
and a devel one. I can't really imagine there being _gtk1 or _qt<br>
packages; the _gtk2 one is basically the runtime package and should be<br>
named _rt.</blockquote><div><br><br>Well, funny you should say that. because as I remember, there USED TO BE a gtk1 based version of it.<br>that is why the current one is named _gtk2.<br>There was a time when both versions were available as CSW packages.<br>
<br>I believe it was decided that the gtk1 version was no longer worth maintaining, so it was dropped. So, just the gtk2 back-end was left around.<br><br>So, right now, there is a wxwidgets "front end", and a wxwidgets "back end" that is gtk2.<br>
You are looking to rename the back end to "_rt". However, that seems to make the assumption, that gtk2 is the "one, only, true 'run-time'" for wxwidgets.<br>This assumption is completely false.<br>
wxwidgets can also be Motif based, for example.<br>and to get really down and dirty, there is even a pure X11 backend, from what I understand.<br>( <a href="http://www.wxwidgets.org/docs/faqx11.htm">http://www.wxwidgets.org/docs/faqx11.htm</a> )<br>
<br>So, in summary: the current wxwidgets packages naming, should be left as-is.<br><br><br> </div></div>