{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigfmi3umztfuy2gatbi6tiorowrag3lgasck47taichhiba2x6wee",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mkhcxaxhcqc2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33381&p=272829#p272829",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-27T04:25:44.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "tags": [
    "@Basilisk-Dev"
  ],
  "textContent": "> This is not about dropping GTK2. At the moment, there's no pressing reason to remove the code, and no advantage in doing so.\n\nHopefully that addresses @Basilisk-Dev's concern about dropping GTK2 support from UXP itself. Sounds like that is not on the table, which is good news.\n\n\n> And the type of users doing this... they aren't the type that should be building a UXP application, they're usually out of their depth but desperately clinging to something old because they want their old stuff to work and don't know any better, and if we stop providing a GTK2 version, they'll try to build it and then get mad at us because it wasn't easy to build.\n\nWhich goes back promoting the GTK3 binary to the #1 GNU/Linux position on the Downloads page, and beginning to communicate _**something**_ to the users so they know that this distros-dropping-support train is about to hit them right in the teeth in a very short period of time, and they need to start thinking about planning (or changing plans) accordingly.\n\nFrom what you said earlier, it would appear that _EVEN IF_ you shipped a GTK2 runtime with Pale Moon, it still probably wouldn't run with all plugins, and you would have various glibc mis-matches, etc. You apparently can't just fix people's problems by adding all the libraries to the official Pale Moon binaries.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Platform Development • Re: Future of GTK2 and Pale Moon",
  "updatedAt": "2026-04-27T04:25:44.000Z"
}