[Geany-devel] geany-plugins release GTK version / build fixes / NEWS

[Thomas Martitz]

Enrico Tröger schrieb:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:05:45 +0200, Frank wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi, 
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:12:42 +0100
>> Nick Treleaven <nick.treleaven at btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Just wondering about some things for plugins in the geany-plugins
>>> release. (This doesn't apply for any plugins in SVN that aren't part
>>> of the release).
>>>
>>> Should there be a common minimum version for GTK/GLib? I think this
>>> might be a good idea.
>>>       
>> I agree. Should be the same as Geany's in my opinion. 
>>     
>
> Yes, please.
>   


I don't think the main Geany app should force plugin writers on any 
GTK/GLib version.
It should be possible for the author/maintainer to use newer versions if 
he thinks the new functions make it easier for him to maintain it, or if 
they make the plugin better or something.

But that all doesn't work since the plugins are combined to a single 
package. They should built together, which basically implies a minimum 
GTK/GLib version. I think it doesn't necessarily have to be the minimum 
versions Geany uses.

>
>   
>>> Also for small obvious fixes to plugins (e.g. to get them to build),
>>> should we just commit them ourselves rather than going through the
>>> maintainer (that might be too busy to respond for a while)?
>>>       
>> Its hard to say where to stop as some fixes will need some more than
>> changing two line 
>>     
>
> I'm a bit puzzled about this.
> Basically I think it should be ok to patch some trivial things like the
> currently broken build of the codenav plugin which uses too new GLib
> functions (which is in this case very easy to fix, as mentioned in
> another thread on this list).
> OTOH, I also like the idea of independent modules which are completely
> in the responsibility of the maintainer. But of course, this doesn't
> make much sense when the maintainers disappear.
> So, I'm not really clear about this. Maybe it is indeed better to fix
> rather easy or otherwise important things (like GTK 2.8 compatibility
> if we want to go for it).
>
>
>   

I'm definitely with Nick here