Title: Make GTK+ 2.6 the minimum required GTK version for WS(or even higher)?
Hi,
When converting the clist in rtp_analysis.c to a gtk_list_store it turned out that to get acceptable performance functions from GTK+ 2.6 was needed.
As Stephen Fisher pointed out:
> My initial fix to the problem Anders brought up requires GTK+ 2.6 or later (it is wrapped in a GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)).
> Right now, we have nineteen GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0) checks in the code. GTK+ 2.6.0 is dated Dec 16 2004 on ftp.gtk.org.
> I think it's reasonable to expect a GTK newer than 5+ years old.
C:\wireshark\gtk>grep GTK_CHECK_VERSION *
about_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,9,0)
capture_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
capture_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
capture_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
capture_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
capture_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
capture_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
capture_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
filter_autocomplete.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
filter_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,12,0)
filter_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,12,0)
io_stat.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
io_stat.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
io_stat.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
io_stat.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
io_stat.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
pixmap_save.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
pixmap_save.c:#endif /* GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0) */
proto_hier_stats_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
rtp_analysis.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
rtp_analysis.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
simple_dialog.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,9,0)
wlan_stat_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
wlan_stat_dlg.c:#if GTK_CHECK_VERSION(2,6,0)
( The check for 2.9.0 looks fishy odd numbers are development releases ).
So I realy think that we sould go for a more modern GTK+ version with Wireshark 1.2 ( Minimum 2.6), from above 2.12 might be the right choice. On Windows we are using GTK+ 2.14.
2.8 Aug 12 2005
2.10 Jul 03 2006
2.12 Sep 14 2007
2.14 Sep 04 2008
Regards
Anders
Ref some treads when this was diskussed last year
http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/200804/msg00399.html
http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/200804/msg00488.html
