[csw-maintainers] Killing wxwidgets_gtk2

Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski maciej at opencsw.org
Tue Aug 25 00:18:57 CEST 2009

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Philip Brown<phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
>> Yes, the specific case. The reasoning goes like this: There's the
>> _gtk2 package. It essentially contains shared libraries[1], plus a
>> header file and a few scripts. The other two are the common package,
>> and a devel one. I can't really imagine there being _gtk1 or _qt
>> packages; the _gtk2 one is basically the runtime package and should be
>> named _rt.
> Well, funny you should say that. because as I remember, there USED TO BE a
> gtk1 based version of it.
> that is why the current one is named _gtk2.
> There was a time when both versions were available as CSW packages.
> 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.
> So, right now, there is a wxwidgets "front end", and a wxwidgets "back end"
> that is gtk2.
> 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.
> This assumption is completely false.
> wxwidgets can also be Motif based, for example.
> and to get really down and dirty, there is even a pure X11 backend, from
> what I understand.
> ( http://www.wxwidgets.org/docs/faqx11.htm )
> So, in summary:  the current wxwidgets packages naming, should be left
> as-is.

OK, I understand. My exact assumption was that while there is a choice
of backends, there wouldbe only one backend compiled at a time. But as
you say, there's potential for more. I'm going to keep the package
division as-is. Thanks for the clarification!


More information about the maintainers mailing list