From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SJ923-000188-Hm for bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:53:15 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2012 12:43:51 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,351,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="132537666" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.41]) ([10.255.12.41]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2012 12:43:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4F89D377.7010505@linux.intel.com> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:43:51 -0700 From: Joshua Lock User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Purdie References: <1334398981.7309.98.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: <1334398981.7309.98.camel@ted> Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Replace HobNotebook with gtk.Notebook, comments invited X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 19:53:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 14/04/12 03:23, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 16:24 -0700, Joshua Lock wrote: >> *** This series prevents users of distros with old Gtk+ releases using Hob *** >> >> This is a follow-on from my RFC of yesterday with a similar title. Sadly I >> hadn't realised that one of the API calls I am using is not available in the >> version of gtk+ shipped with CentOS 6 (gtk.Notebook.set_action_widget). >> >> This change will prevent CentOS 6 users from being able to use Hob. >> >> I spent some time in Gtk+ internals trying to figure out if we can emulate the >> behaviour on older versions but the GtkNotebook widget internals were enhanced >> significantly to support the set_action_widget API. >> >> I've submitted the change as an RFC regardless, it's ready to merge if we're >> willing to make the sacrifice. >> >> The primary motivation for making this change, and making it so late in the >> cycle, is maintainability. The diffstat says it all - we're replacing an ~400LOC >> custom widget with a ~100LOC set of 3 widgets which subclass standard toolkit >> widgets. >> >> An added benefit is that standard toolkit widgets generally integrate better >> into the users OS thanks to inheriting their standard theme. >> >> Tested on: >> Fedora 16 (x86_64) - PASS >> CentOS 6.2 (x86_64) - FAIL: Gtk+ version too old >> Ubuntu 10.04 (x86_64) - Fail: pygtk version too old >> Ubuntu 12.04 Beta (x86_64) - PASS >> >> Per the final patch in the series the changes here require gtk+-2.20 or newer >> and pygtk 2.22 or newer. > > Since we don't have a good external-python tarball solution in place > yet, I'm going to have to hold off these patches until after the current > release. This makes perfect sense and I agree with the decision. Thanks, Joshua -- Joshua Lock Yocto Project Intel Open Source Technology Centre