can we get an updated wxgtk3 package? FileZilla, for example, has all sorts of interface problems due to the older version of wxwidgets. https://www.wxwidgets.org/news/2016/02/wxwidgets-3.1.0-released/ "Please notice that while 3.1.0 is officially a "development" version because it is not fully compatible with 3.0.x, the list of backwards incompatible changes is very short, so you shouldn't have any problems updating to this version from 3.0.x in practice, and you're encouraged to try this version out and use it in production in spite of its odd version number."
My gut response in this matter is no, as development versions are prone to regressions and possible instabilities. Personally, I would lean more towards backporting any bug fixes to 3.0.x, as Scott has been doing for the last while. Do you have any particular fixes or possibly must-have features that you would like to be backported? Is there any particular reason why patching 3.0.x would be an issue for you? Scott is more involved upstream, so he may have a better opinion on this. As well, if 3.1.0 were to be pushed to Fedora, it would not be included until F26 to avoid breakage; so I have changed the bug to Rawhide for the time being.
The FileZilla interface is a mess ever since the Fedora packagers switched it to build against GTK3. Every time I report a bug to FileZilla, they tell me I need to update wxWidgets. For example, when GTK3 "overlay scrolling" is disabled (and a pane has scrollbars), the file rename function doesn't work properly in FileZilla, due to poor support for GTK3 in the older version. The rename interface doesn't work at all under these circumstances, the file just remains highlighted instead of changing into an editable input box. Again, this is only one example. If you're against regressions, please take over maintainership of FileZilla and switch it back to gtk2! ;-) If better GTK3 support can be backported, please, by all means, and with all due haste.
(In reply to utwubie from comment #2) > The FileZilla interface is a mess ever since the Fedora packagers switched > it to build against GTK3. Every time I report a bug to FileZilla, they tell > me I need to update wxWidgets. For example, when GTK3 "overlay scrolling" is > disabled (and a pane has scrollbars), the file rename function doesn't work > properly in FileZilla, due to poor support for GTK3 in the older version. > The rename interface doesn't work at all under these circumstances, the file > just remains highlighted instead of changing into an editable input box. > Again, this is only one example. > > If you're against regressions, please take over maintainership of FileZilla > and switch it back to gtk2! ;-) > > If better GTK3 support can be backported, please, by all means, and with all > due haste. Hmm, well overlay scrolling is likely not going to be backported as it's just an enhancement, but the file rename function issue sounds problematic. Please open another bug report against wxGTK3 for this issue and for each issue you find. If it's an issue where upstream told you that it would be fixed by updating to 3.1.0, such as this issue, please mention this in the bug. Closing for now, unless Scott thinks it would be better to update to 3.1.0, then we can reopen.
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #3) > Hmm, well overlay scrolling is likely not going to be backported as it's > just an enhancement, but the file rename function issue sounds problematic. You misunderstand -- the problem occurs when overlay scrolling is turned OFF (which it is by default in the Mate Desktop). > Please open another bug report against wxGTK3 for this issue and for each > issue you find. If it's an issue where upstream told you that it would be > fixed by updating to 3.1.0, such as this issue, please mention this in the > bug. I have opened a new bug for the specific issue I described: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381765 I will endeavor to post additional bugs as I find the time.
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #1) > My gut response in this matter is no, as development versions are prone to > regressions and possible instabilities. > > Personally, I would lean more towards backporting any bug fixes to 3.0.x, as > Scott has been doing for the last while. > > Do you have any particular fixes or possibly must-have features that you > would like to be backported? Is there any particular reason why patching > 3.0.x would be an issue for you? > > Scott is more involved upstream, so he may have a better opinion on this. > > As well, if 3.1.0 were to be pushed to Fedora, it would not be included > until F26 to avoid breakage; so I have changed the bug to Rawhide for the > time being. I would agree with Jeremy, we don't generally package development releases. I'd prefer to cherry-pick patches from 3.0 git as needed.
(In reply to Scott Talbert from comment #5)> > I would agree with Jeremy, we don't generally package development releases. > > I'd prefer to cherry-pick patches from 3.0 git as needed. Thanks for your input. I've finished one of the bugs, feel free to tackle #1381765 if you have time.