On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 13. 05. 24 v 13:24 Nils Philippsen napsal(a): > > 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 > > > Am I supposed to read this that over time, GIMP3 will get closer to > GIMP2 and once they are identical, the switch will be painless? I > don't > think this is the plan. No, I just wanted to point out the issues I have with continuing GIMP 2.x in a `gimp2` package and bumping the `gimp` version to carry version 3. Another reason I forgot about is that, as I understand it, no new package using Python 2.x may be added to the distro and I don’t want to trouble the Packaging Committee for an exception. > Look at e.g. Python. How long it took to migrate and have we migrated > to > Python 3 when everything was ready? Hardly. There was just pain > during > all the years. Or look at DNF. I’m not sure what you mean by mentioning these examples. > ntroducing GIMP 3 package is just extending pain. Nothing more. If > somebody wants to stick with GIMP2 for whatever reason, they can pin > their version or if you want to be super nice, provide the gimp2 > package. Let me try to clarify: Offering both major versions is mainly to cater for existing projects people might have. It’s hardly a maintenance burden as long as the dependencies are still available, at some point this might change and then the 2.x package will be retired. I have my reasons for naming the set of packages ("gimp", "gimp3") rather than ("gimp2", "gimp") which you might not find convincing, but in the end which package gets the versioned name and which doesn’t is an implementation detail – many people use package management software which doesn’t display these front and center. > > (and would probably go against package > > compatibility guidelines if done in Fedora <= 40). > > > Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40? Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the OS – or wait for Fedora 41 to be at a level of stability acceptable to them – before they can use the new version. Ciao, Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Senior Software Engineer / Red Hat 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
