[Geany-devel] Question about GTK+ version used

[Matthew Brush]

On 11-10-04 05:36 AM, Alexander Eberspächer wrote:
> On 1 October 2011 13:44, Matthew Brush<mbrush at codebrainz.ca>  wrote:
>
>> It seems to me like this group of users would be very small and require that
>> they are:
>>   - Enterprise/LTS users running a GUI
>>   - And who are willing to install unsupported software.
>
> That may be the case more often than one might thinnk it is... Think
> of all the people who have neither a choice in OS nor root access to
> their machine. I work at a university, where this is commonly the
> case.
>

Keep in mind that previous versions of Geany will always still be there, 
and AFAIK there aren't any majour flaws in them, nor is there a great 
loss of functionality compared to the latest release.

>>   - And whos distro doesn't backport newer libraries.
>>   - And who are developers, can compile Geany but can't compile GTK+.
>
> Compiling Geany is easy, compiling GTK is another order of magnitude.
> I might be able to compile GTK, but I certainly do not want to. I
> think I tried once, escaped dependency hell without injuries but then
> decided that two GTK installation one one machine suck.
>

I won't pretend that compiling GTK+ isn't somewhat of a pain, but it's 
quite well documented and the dependencies aren't *that* bad.  If you've 
done it correctly, it shouldn't matter that you have two GTK+ 
installations on one machine since it should only use the one in your 
home directory.  I have 4 or 5 different installed versions of the GTK+ 
stack installed on my system that I use for testing.

>>   - And who are not satisfied with existing supported Geany packages.
>
> Again, as a user on say RHEL, you might not even have a precompiled
> Geany package available.
>

It seems from a quick search there are some available though I'm not 
sure what versions.

>> I would just be curious to know how many (or what percentage of) users fall
>> into this group.
>
> I do, unfortunately.
>
> So, in conclusion: I think GTK 2.18 (RHEL 6) seems reasonable.
>

Yeah, 2.18 seems to be about right all things considered.

Cheers,
Matthew Brush