[Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Gerald Combs wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason we shouldn't just jump to GTK 2.8?  The GTK+ for 
> > Windows site is confusing.  The front page says that 2.4 and 2.6 are 
> > the current versions, but the download page says that 2.8 is.
>
>
> Well, the GTK for Win32 homepage was always a bit confusing :-)
>
> I would think the current stable to be the 2.6, as this is also the 
> version of the files provided on the download page (I would like to use 
> files from that page rather than compiling from source). The 2.8 is 
> mentioned, but I don't see any files.

A link to ftp://ftp.gtk.org/pub/gtk/v2.8/win32/ is on the GTK for Win32 
download page, but it's not very prominent.

> The last time I asked Tor (few weeks ago?) of the current state, he 
> noticed that 2.4 is rather old and we should update to 2.6 or 2.8.
>
> He was planning to declare the 2.8 as the new stable version but there 
> seems to be no changes since then.
>
> The Gimp (which seems to be the main source of operation for the GTK 
> Win32 port) also currently uses 2.6.9, so we might want to switch to 
> this version for now.
>
> Changing from 2.6 to 2.8 seems to be less painful than the 2.4 to 2.6 
> versions (which was requiring the file function wrappers I've already 
> done)...

You must have done all of the hard work.  Adding 2.8 support was pretty 
straightforward.  I added the 2.6 and 2.8 libraries and header files to 
the ethereal-win32-libs SVN repository, along with updating ADNS and 
PCRE.  I changed config.nmake to build against 2.8 by default so that it 
will ship with the automated builds.  We can back off to 2.6 or 2.4 for 
the official release if needed.