Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi everyone,

On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 11:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > > 
> > 
> > What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
> > gimp3 for the new version...

this is to avoid package renaming churn and to be able to introduce
GIMP 3 alongside the 2.x packages already in Fedora. I use the same MO
for Ardour, which gets major version updates more often than GIMP and
whose users have a similar requirement to be able to open old projects
with matching versions of the application while starting new ones on
the latest and greatest.

If I’m not off track, renaming the existing version to “gimp2” would at
least make people install it as an update to “gimp-2.10.x” without any
real benefit to them. And it would make ”gimp” jump to version 3 which
is wildly different (and would probably go against package
compatibility guidelines if done in Fedora <= 40).

> Also, how did this pass review?
> 
> License:        LGPLv3+

We missed the subpackages when converting the license tag to the SPDX
format originally, and I didn’t notice this when I used the spec file
as a starting point for GIMP 3. Thanks for bringing it to my attention,
I will correct this shortly for both.

> And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review
> ticket.

This is correct. 

> Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora?

I took it to be exempt from package reviews under this exemption[1]:

   “The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same
   package can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and
   RHEL). The package MUST be properly named according to the naming
   guidelines and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same
   package.”

Accordingly, I submitted a ticket for the package repository to be
created[2], with a short description why I think it warrants exemption.

In hindsight, I should have at least run fedora-review on it before
pushing the spec file etc. into the repository. I’ll do that before
submitting updates – which are blocked right now anyway, because the
package doesn’t build successfully on some architectures. If you notice
anything else amiss, please let me know so I can fix it, too.

As this is not part of my day job, I don’t know yet when I’ll get to
fixing things, building and submitting newpackage updates.

Ciao,
Nils

[1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process
[2]: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152
-- 
Nils Philippsen / Wilhelmstraße 22 / 71229 Leonberg / Germany 
nils@xxxxxxxxx / nils@xxxxxxxxxx
PGP fingerprint: D0C1 1576 CDA6 5B6E BBAE 95B2 7D53 7FCA E9F6 395D
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux