[ Followup to fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx ]
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 21:37, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 14 Oct 2003 18:19:22 +0200, Peter Backlund wrote:
>
> > > - gimp-beta-1.3.21
> >
> > The 1.3 series of gimp is already in Fedora, and is called gimp2.
> > It's not a very good idea to supply the same software with a different
> > name.
>
> To Nils' defense, he has been offering a small selection of own
> packages for some time and already when the fedora.us package was
> still called gimp13.
>
> Whether it makes sense to duplicate the packaging efforts, when
> gimp2-1.3.21-0.fdr.1 is in the fedora.us publish queue, is a different
> question. IMO both packagers should team up.
With pleasure ;-).
A few points I'd like to discuss and/or noticed (after comparing the
gimp2 and gimp-beta packages):
- whether it should be called gimp2 or gimp-beta -- gimp2 makes sense if
the final package also will be called gimp2, gimp-beta could be easily
obsoleted in any later final package ("gimp-beta <= 2.0")
- whether or not to explicitly list directories - I guess this makes
sense for /etc/gimp, but e.g. /usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES or
/usr/include don't belong in gimp packages
- whether or not gimptool-1.3 belongs into the -devel package
- I moved the devel docs from /usr/share/gtk-doc to
/usr/share/doc/gimp-beta-devel-.../
- the gimp2 package requires libaa, libexif, the gimp-beta package has a
few more explicit requirements (which min versions of glib2, gtk2,
pango, ...)
- I think the desktop file should reflect that this is still a beta
version, even though it's close it's not yet "GIMP 2"
Comments?
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
