Re: [Gchemutils-main] GChemPaint and gtk+-3.20

[Jean Bréfort]

Le samedi 07 mai 2016 à 18:33 +0200, Julian Sikorski a écrit :
> W dniu 07.05.2016 o 16:58, Jean Brefort pisze:
> > 
> > Le samedi 07 mai 2016 à 15:51 +0200, Julian Sikorski a écrit :
> > > 
> > > W dniu 01.05.2016 o 15:47, Jean Bréfort pisze:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Looks like GChemPaint has serious display issues when run over
> > > > gtk+-
> > > > 3.20 (gray background in the main window and, more critical,
> > > > invisible
> > > > buttons in the toolbox).
> > > > 
> > > > As things work with the unstable branch (svn trunk, not
> > > > 0.15.1),
> > > > the
> > > > easy way to fix it is to backport some code from it to the
> > > > stable
> > > > branch. This means API instability, but it should not be an
> > > > issue
> > > > since
> > > > the libraries are not used elsewhere. And while there I think I
> > > > might
> > > > backport new features which seem already stable such as support
> > > > for
> > > > math equation display using lasem. Would adding this new
> > > > dependency
> > > > an
> > > > issue for some packagers? I know there is a lasem rpm in
> > > > fedora,
> > > > but
> > > > nothing in debian (although there is an old request for it).
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Jean
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Gchemutils-main mailing list
> > > > address@hidden
> > > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gchemutils-main
> > > > 
> > > Hi Jean,
> > > 
> > > I looked for references of Lasem for fedora but I could not find
> > > any.
> > > RPMFind only returns OpenSUSE packages. Please may you clarify
> > > where
> > > did
> > > you see references to Fedora lasem rpm?
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > Julian
> > Hi Julian,
> > 
> > I found this one:
> > http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/23801403/dir/fedora_19/
> > com/
> > lasem-devel-0.4.1-7.1.i686.rpm.html
> > 
> > Looks like it is related to OpenSuse though.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Jean
> > 
> Hi Jean,
> 
> this does not look like proper Fedora package unfortunately.
> Moreover,
> Fedora 19 is 3 releases older than the oldest supported branch.
> As such, I am not in favour of adding this dependency. While I could
> submit it for review, I cannot tell how long would it take to get the
> package into Fedora repositories.
> 
> Best regards,
> Julian

OK, I'll make it optional then.

Best regards,
Jean