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 <ser...@serjux.com> > > 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 n...@tiptoe.de / n...@redhat.com PGP fingerprint: D0C1 1576 CDA6 5B6E BBAE 95B2 7D53 7FCA E9F6 395D -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
