On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 05:24:10PM +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote: > This new version involves substantial changes to the technologies > used, which in turn means that third party plugins have to be ported > to be compatible. Therefore, this change will add the new version as a > new package <code>gimp3</code> which can be installed side-by-side > with the existing version 2.x package, so people can continue working > on existing projects with the old gimp version and its plugins. The naming of the srpm / dist-git repos is fine. But please call the binary rpm with the new version 'gimp' and the binary rpm with the old version 'gimp2' in F41+. We want users to be upgraded to gimp-3 when they update the system. It's fine if they then install gimp-2 for compat reasons. But the upgrade should be automatic. Also, the new version should carry normal appinfo metadata so it shows up in the graphical search, etc. > In order to make upgrades seamless for users (and avoid having to go > through an exception process for a “new” <code>gimp2</code> package > needing Python 2.x), the existing package will remain named > <code>gimp</code> and it plus <code>gimp3</code> will obsolete the > version 2.x packages from Fedora Linux <= 40 in version 41. This statement is dubious. As you wrote yourself in the earlier thread, there is an automatic exception to the review process for compat packages. The guidelines indeed don't say anything explicitly about compat packages depending on deprecated packages, but it seems reasonable to assume this does not introduce the requirement of a FPC review. (Consider: you can certainly keep gimp==2 and add gimp3==3 without review. But if instead gimp2==2 is added and gimp is updated to 3, no new dependency on the deprecated package is introduced. So nothing changes for the distro, and this should be treated the same.) The guidelines [1] say this: > other packages in Fedora MUST NOT add a dependency on a deprecated > package (that includes Requires, BuildRequires, Recommends, > Suggests, etc.). This applies both for updates of existing packages > and new packages added to Fedora. Those submitting new packages, > along with package reviewers, MUST check to see if any dependencies > of the package they are submitting or reviewing have been > deprecated. (It is, however, acceptable for a deprecated package to > be renamed.) I'm not sure what this last sentence is trying to say. It is a non-sequitur to the earlier text, *unless* the intent was actually to say something different: "It is, however, acceptable for a package requiring a deprecated package to be renamed." ?? Either way, I think we should clarify the guidelines to allow this. Please drop this para from the Change page. People are already confused about requirements for compat packages, and I think this paragraph is not needed and will only cause additional confusion. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/#_consequences_of_a_package_being_deprecated > == Feedback == The gimp3 package in F40 has: /usr/bin/gimp-2.99 /usr/bin/gimp-console-2.99 /usr/bin/gimp-script-fu-interpreter-3.0 /usr/bin/gimp-test-clipboard-2.99 Please make this 'gimp3' and 'gimp3-console' (so that the users can use stable names. This is the style of naming of binaries that compat python versions use.) Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ 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
