https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490053 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Antonio, (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > I think it's not correct extracting a patched code from an archive and > propose it as library that obsoletes the actual 'liborigin' libs. > > Has "liborigin3" been proposed to upstream? > (https://sourceforge.net/projects/liborigin/) > > You could produce 'liborigin' from scidavis's vcs as a private SciDAVis > library, as long as new changes are backported and tested as a new real > 'liborigin' release. Please see these threads from devel@ on that subject: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/RHQZMRRBPXQ2FCESWKTSMUPZ43VTCXRJ/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/EMVB3JGM5AZVVO7NA3E7DHJLB32CMJJW/ The gist of it is that a) SciDAVis and liborigin share a number of contributors, b) liborigin was bumped to 3.0.0 internally, but not publicly released and c) the two codebases will merge back together before the 3.0.0 release. You got me thinking about the name of the library though. I had named it liborigin3 to distinguish it from liborigin and liborigin2 in Fedora. Would it be better if I just updated liborigin to liborigin-3.0.0.pre instead? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
