On 2/25/2018 10:48 PM, Steven A. Falco wrote: > On 02/25/2018 07:31 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >> >> >> On 02/25/2018 07:25 PM, Rene Pöschl wrote: >>> On 25/02/18 23:29, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >>>> Stephen, >>>> >>>> I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library. This will >>>> probably be acceptable up to the stable release. At this point we will >>>> have to tag each repo. Are any of our library devs planning on doing >>>> any major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable >>>> release? If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Wayne >>>> >>> >>> I asked a week or so ago if i should tag. Your response was that it is >>> unnecessary. Otherwise i would have tagged the libs back then. >>> l >>> As i do not yet plan to ban major changes, i tagged the repos with >>> "v5.0.0-rc1" >>> >> >> Rene, >> >> I don't think there is a major issue here but tagging rc1 wont hurt >> anything. The main thing I am worried about is the stable release and that >> the library layout structure and the library names remain constant >> throughout the stable 5 release series unless the user specifically chooses >> to install newer libraries. Between now and the stable release, I do expect >> some changes to the libraries but we can tag as we go if we need to. > > There are a lot of issues here that I am not necessarily competent to answer, > so let me just propose a quick patch to get the copr builds to at least use > the v5 libraries instead of the v4 libraries. That will potentially enable > more Fedora users to test with a consistent v5 of kicad, so I see it as a > step in the right direction. > > I've attached the patch, and I've tested it in my copr repo here: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stevenfalco/kicad/ > > Basically, this patch replaces the v4 kicad-library repo with the v5 > kicad-footprints, kicad-packages3D, kicad-templates and kicad-symbols repos. > It also sets KICAD_VERSION_EXTRA to the git "commit-count.SHA" so the version > is more visible in the help:about dialog. > > I received a pm from a developer off-list, who wants to split the package > into separate components, uncoupling the libs from the executables. That > seems like a great idea to me, and lines up with the debian proposal, but > clearly that will take more effort to put in place. > > Please let me know if this patch is acceptable, or if you need further > changes. > > Steve
Can someone please help Steve out here? I don't know where our fedora packages are being maintained so I would appreciate someone confirming this patch. I don't know that there is much we can do about the upstream situation. Thanks, Wayne > > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Wayne >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
