GTK+Extra has not been released since 2001, yet it is still under development. There is at least one package I know of which requires a more recent version than the latest release. So I have created an ebuild which gets a snapshot from CVS from a specific date (24th Feb 2004), and builds it. There is also a small patch which is required to get it to compile. I will attach these files to the Bugzilla report. In a separate report, I will also attach an ebuild for gpsim-0.21.2, which requires this package if it is to be compiled with GTK-2 support.
Created attachment 26325 [details] GTK+Extra CVS ebuild
we'd much prefer to have a release rather than a cvs snapshot .. are there any plans from the gtk+extra people to release anything?
Created attachment 26880 [details] gtk+extra-0.99.17_p20040304.ebuild cvs snapshot ebuild - tarball of cvs as of today avail at http://dev.gentoo.org/~dragonheart/gtk+extra-20040304.tar.bz2. I have verified that it is needed to solve bug #42889 and I don't think the gtk+extra people are going to issue a release soon. This ebuild also uses the patch that Laurence provided in the previous tarball except it is renamed to files/gtk+extra-20040304-fixup.patch.
well, i'm sort of inclined to remove gtk+extra from the tree, it is unmaintained and works only with an unmaintained version of gtk+. It never made it to a stable release even.
there's actually a couple of packages in portage that deps on this http://www.gentoo-portage.com/browse-program-rdep.php?program=4389
I know, gpsim is the pack blocking here (but only optionally deps), scigraphica is sort of co-developed/intertwined stuff & not maintained either. python-gtkextra are only bindings, not used anywhere. The only realy problem might be scigraphica, but actually it is in sort of the same situation and should be up for removal as well.
Well, if nobody has any objections, I'll see what I can do about arranging a release. If all the GTK+Extra devs are now unresponsive I can ask SF if I can take over the project, or perhaps fork it.
And do you intend to seriously maintain it ? No offense, but a claim like that done so easily doesn't sound very credible to me. This has little todo with the gtk+extra stuff in the tree btw, this is all unmaintained, unstable, never released gtk2 branch stuff. No i can't seriously consider this for addition at this time apart from the fact if we should consider removing gtk+extra for gtk1.
Well, bear in mind that *maintaining* a package like this will be a lot less work than actually *developing* it. It would just involve the occasional patch, organising a realease whenever enough has changed, etc. But as you say, this is only an optional dependency for gpsim (and only if you want to use GTK+2), so it's not exactly high-priority. I've asked about the dependency on the gpsim mailing list. Perhaps Scott (the author) will fold whatever is required into the gpsim source tree. I've also emailed the maintainer for gtk+extra, so I'll wait and see what happens :-)
Having just heard back from the maintainer of gtk+extra, it seems that the library is still being developed but the changes are not yet in CVS. Adrian says that he will try to make an official release in the next few days, so I guess we'll see what happens.
python-gtkextra 1.1.0 March 8, 2004 it seemes we have a new version now. Ciao, Riccardo
python-gtkextra 1.1.0 is different. "a few days" for gtk extra hmmm.....
maybe the author's confusing days and years? Or it could be "daze"?
It seems as though this project is rotting. The maintainers are active enough that the project can't be counted as abandoned but not so active that they will organise a release. I recommend that we close this bug, get gpsim (42889) to build without GTK+extra, and try to convince gpsim's author, Scott Dattalo, to drop the GTK+extra requirement.
Closing this because no packages that I know of require it, and because no work seems to be happening :-(
