Re: Getting rid of wxwidgets2.6
I wrote:
> Currently we have wxwidgets2.6 and wxwidgets2.8 in the archive. We've
> had wxwidgets2.8 since lenny and it's now much more widely used than
> 2.6 in the archive. Upstream 2.6 no longer really gets any attention
> (the last release was in 2007), while 2.8 had a point release about 6
> months ago.
>
> So I believe it's time to migrate the remaining wxwidgets2.6-dependent
> packages to wxwidgets2.8 and get rid of wxwidgets2.6.
We've made good progress already with 6 packages fixed and uploaded and
a couple more pending uploads. Thanks to everyone who's helped things
along. I get the feeling this migration is pushing on an open door,
and it's looking like it could realistically be done before the end of
2011.
I'm going to have to be less active on this for a while, but we've
reached the point where all the packages which need changing to be able
remove wxwidgets2.6 now have a bug filed, so it's mostly a matter of
waiting for these to get attention, then addressing what remains with
NMUs.
There are also 13 packages which will need to drop an alternative
dependency on python-wxgtk2.6 at some point, but which don't have bugs
filed yet. I'll file wishlist bugs for these if I get a chance, but
please just go ahead and remove the alternative dependency on
python-wxgtk2.6 next time you upload. If python-wxgtk2.8 is installed
these packages will all currently use it in preference (unless the user
has changed the wx.pth alternative) so they'll all already be running
with 2.8 for most users.
If you want to check the status, see the wiki page:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/WxWidgets/Transition2.6to2.8
I've also user-tagged the bugs, and there's a link to that on there.
2.8.12.1-2 is now in unstable. I'd intended to target experimental (as
I had with 2.8.12.1-1), but slipped up. However since putting it in
experimental was mostly just being cautious, so I'm intending to let it
stay in unstable, and deal with any issues there. We'll uncover them
sooner at least.
Once 2.6 is gone, I'll try to get 2.9.x packaged and into experimental
(if I've not lost all enthusiasm by then) so that at least the various
new packages which require it can also go into experimental, and we can
be more prepared for when 3.0 finally emerges.
Cheers,
Olly
Reply to: