Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
W dniu 20 kwietnia 2012 01:03 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski napisał: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Caleb Maclennan wrote: >> 2012/4/19 Artur Wroblewski : >>> hi, >>> >>> i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. >>> >>> any argument against? >>> >>> btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. >>> shall >>> they be removed, rebuilt? >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> w >> >> Yes. That is an RC for a major release version and there aren't any >> show-stopper bugs or comparability issues in the previous release that >> would force us to skip ahead to get the bugs ironed out. At this point >> I'm having a heck of a time keeping stable systems using TH which is >> supposed to be STABLE. Adding more backwards incompatible libraries to >> the dependency mess is going to make that worse, not better. > > Ac is stable release for which we have appropriate branch and Th > is in constant development mode, isn't it? > > I am asking because I am bit lost with above arguments - do we > have some new rules for Th? When they changed? :P You tell us. AFAIK official rules state that no Betas and RCs are allowed on HEAD and exceptions need to be discussed. I can't remember to have read any new rules lately that differ from what I just said, so if you know something more, please share it with us. > > To repeat myself "cvs head != Th ftp". If you send it to the builders, > then it is your fault. In general CVS != FTP, but as we all know the first step to get a package to main FTP is to put it on CVS HEAD. Putting there unstable versions is very confusing. > > Let me rephrase - is anyone planning any work related to Gimp 2.6 > on CVS HEAD in near future? If not, then I will do the merge from > DEVEL (but please let non-IRC people know if any rules changed > regarding Th and what's the plan). That's not an argument. Noone's gonna know if for some reason Gimp 2.6 will need to be patched, fixed, rebuilt or our chief only knows what else. What's the problem with having an _unstable_ version on DEVEL anyway? What is so importand in this version to you so desperately need to put it on HEAD? -- "I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time." -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Caleb Maclennan wrote: > 2012/4/19 Artur Wroblewski : >> hi, >> >> i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. >> >> any argument against? >> >> btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. >> shall >> they be removed, rebuilt? >> >> regards, >> >> w > > Yes. That is an RC for a major release version and there aren't any > show-stopper bugs or comparability issues in the previous release that > would force us to skip ahead to get the bugs ironed out. At this point > I'm having a heck of a time keeping stable systems using TH which is > supposed to be STABLE. Adding more backwards incompatible libraries to > the dependency mess is going to make that worse, not better. Ac is stable release for which we have appropriate branch and Th is in constant development mode, isn't it? I am asking because I am bit lost with above arguments - do we have some new rules for Th? When they changed? :P To repeat myself "cvs head != Th ftp". If you send it to the builders, then it is your fault. Let me rephrase - is anyone planning any work related to Gimp 2.6 on CVS HEAD in near future? If not, then I will do the merge from DEVEL (but please let non-IRC people know if any rules changed regarding Th and what's the plan). Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
2012/4/19 Bartosz Świątek : > W dniu 19 kwietnia 2012 21:32 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski > napisał: >> hi, >> >> i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. >> >> any argument against? > > Yes. New gegl and babl break API/ABI compatibility with earlier > versions. Gimp 2.8 RC1 needs them. Also as statet on gimp.org, they > need to fix some bugs and are looking for more bugs. That's always a > release stoper. > But I'm sure noone else will find these arguments critical and we will > soon see more and more Alpha, Beta and RC version on HEAD and main > ftp. I was asking to put it on HEAD. _Not_ to put it on ftp. Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
2012/4/19 Artur Wroblewski : > hi, > > i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. > > any argument against? > > btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. > shall > they be removed, rebuilt? > > regards, > > w Yes. That is an RC for a major release version and there aren't any show-stopper bugs or comparability issues in the previous release that would force us to skip ahead to get the bugs ironed out. At this point I'm having a heck of a time keeping stable systems using TH which is supposed to be STABLE. Adding more backwards incompatible libraries to the dependency mess is going to make that worse, not better. Caleb ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
W dniu 19 kwietnia 2012 21:32 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski napisał: > hi, > > i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. > > any argument against? Yes. New gegl and babl break API/ABI compatibility with earlier versions. Gimp 2.8 RC1 needs them. Also as statet on gimp.org, they need to fix some bugs and are looking for more bugs. That's always a release stoper. But I'm sure noone else will find these arguments critical and we will soon see more and more Alpha, Beta and RC version on HEAD and main ftp. -- "I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time." -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
hi, i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. any argument against? btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. shall they be removed, rebuilt? regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: packages: babl/babl.spec - ver. 0.1.8 (nfy - builds without vala 0.16 and w...
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:18:15PM +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 02:06:26AM +0200, wrobell wrote: > >> BuildRequires: autoconf >= 2.54 > >> BuildRequires: automake >= 1:1.11 > >> +BuildRequires: elfutils-devel > > > > Where did this come from? > > libtool: link: gcc -o > /home/users/wrobell/rpm/BUILD/babl-0.1.10/babl/tmp-introspectUAe1Xd/.libs/Babl-0.1 > /home/users/wrobell/rpm/BUILD/babl-0.1.10/babl/tmp-introspectUAe1Xd/Babl-0.1.o > -pthread -Wl,--export-dynamic -Wl,--export-dynamic -L. > ./.libs/libbabl-0.1.so -lm /usr/lib64/libgio-2.0.so -lz -lresolv > /usr/lib64/libgobject-2.0.so /usr/lib64/libffi.so > /usr/lib64/libgthread-2.0.so /usr/lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so -ldl > /usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so /usr/lib64/libpcre.so -lpthread -lrt -lelf > -pthread > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lelf > > Try: > > $ grep -r elf /usr/lib64/*.la > > Not sure where to add the dependency... glib2-devel? It came from glib2, but it's unnecessary. Only gresource tool should be linked with -lelf; I've added a patch to avoid adding -lelf to global LIBS in glib2 build. -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
