Bug#803456: Digikam 5.0.0 uploaded

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 10:59:30 PM CDT you wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> First a big thanks at Steve for packaging digikam!
> I proposed an information on the welcome page about the configuration
> transition. I hope this is included before 5.1.0:
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364258#c18

Thank you for that!  I see it was merged by Gilles.

> I will keep you posted. I would really like to see digikam5 in
> non-experimental debian repo soon!
> 
> On a side note: Is bug triaging on this package welcomed?

Yes, please!  And thank you!

-Steve


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#803456: Digikam 5.0.0 uploaded

[Simon Frei]

Hi again,

Point 2 is now addressed in current master upstream. My patch adds 
information about the non-migrated configuration to the welcome page. 
This will be in the 5.1.0 release due tomorrow. So is there now nothing 
left in the way to release digikam in unstable?


Cheers,
Simon

Bug#803456: Digikam 5.0.0 uploaded

[Simon Frei]

Hi,

First a big thanks at Steve for packaging digikam!
I proposed an information on the welcome page about the configuration 
transition. I hope this is included before 5.1.0: 
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364258#c18
I will keep you posted. I would really like to see digikam5 in 
non-experimental debian repo soon!


On a side note: Is bug triaging on this package welcomed?

Cheers,
Simon

Bug#803456: Digikam 5.0.0 uploaded

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On jueves, 14 de julio de 2016 8:05:04 P. M. ART Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2016 5:38:52 PM CDT Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> 
> wrote:
> > On domingo, 10 de julio de 2016 2:01:04 P. M. ART Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I wanted to make people aware that I have uploaded Digikam 5.0.0
> > > packages
> > > to Debian earlier today.
> > 
> > First of all: thanks a lot.
> 
> Another thing I'd like to do is move the packaging from SVN to GIT.  Earlier
> [1] you had indicated there are scripts to help this migration.  Can point
> me at them?


I've used this one:



-- 
Cuando tenga duda, utilice la solución mas simple.
  Principio de William Occam, también llamado
  "la navaja de Occam"

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#803456: Digikam 5.0.0 uploaded

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Monday, July 11, 2016 5:38:52 PM CDT Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer 
wrote:
> On domingo, 10 de julio de 2016 2:01:04 P. M. ART Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I wanted to make people aware that I have uploaded Digikam 5.0.0 packages
> > to Debian earlier today.
> 
> First of all: thanks a lot.

Another thing I'd like to do is move the packaging from SVN to GIT.  Earlier 
[1] you had indicated there are scripts to help this migration.  Can point me 
at them?

Thanks,
-Steve

[1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/2015-December/
002227.html




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#803456: Digikam 5.0.0 uploaded

[Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer]

On domingo, 10 de julio de 2016 2:01:04 P. M. ART Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to make people aware that I have uploaded Digikam 5.0.0 packages to
> Debian earlier today.

First of all: thanks a lot.
 
> I uploaded to experimental for staging for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. To work through the build issues on various architectures.
> 
> 2. The configuration files are in a new location, but digikam does no
> migration [1].  To the user, it appears you are starting from scratch and
> there is a risk of confusion -- the referenced bug is from someone who
> thought (mistakenly) that a migration procedure was required.  The bug also
> references possibly using a KF5 function KConfig::copyTo() to migrate the
> files, but then concludes that some digikam 4 settings cause digikam 5 to
> crash.  At this point, it seems that automatic migration is unsafe but that
> the initial configuration wizard should be augmented with text that
> describes the upgrade- from-4.x scenario better.  I'm seeking suggestions
> on what might be the best approach here.

I would for starters file an RC bug to the version in experimental so users 
know this before it gets installed (thanks to apt-listbugs). This would also 
make the bug more visible.

Then I guess it's either provide patches upstream or wait for a fix :-/

> 3. The showfoto internationalized docs are missing due to an upstream bug
> [2]. The bug is now patched upstream; however, the fix re-structures the
> source tarball so it is unclear whether this is easy to port into the
> current version; or better to wait for upstream 5.1.0 source tarball.

We still have time before the freeze, do you think a new upstream release will 
happen during this timeframe? Else it could be an upstream snapshot.

Thanks a lot Steve!


-- 
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
 -- Groucho Marx

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#803456: Digikam 5.0.0 uploaded

[Steve M. Robbins]

Hi,

I wanted to make people aware that I have uploaded Digikam 5.0.0 packages to 
Debian earlier today.

I uploaded to experimental for staging for a few reasons:

1. To work through the build issues on various architectures. 

2. The configuration files are in a new location, but digikam does no migration 
[1].  To the user, it appears you are starting from scratch and there is a 
risk of confusion -- the referenced bug is from someone who thought 
(mistakenly) that a migration procedure was required.  The bug also references 
possibly using a KF5 function KConfig::copyTo() to migrate the files, but then 
concludes that some digikam 4 settings cause digikam 5 to crash.  At this 
point, it seems that automatic migration is unsafe but that the initial 
configuration wizard should be augmented with text that describes the upgrade-
from-4.x scenario better.  I'm seeking suggestions on what might be the best 
approach here.

3. The showfoto internationalized docs are missing due to an upstream bug [2].  
 
The bug is now patched upstream; however, the fix re-structures the source 
tarball so it is unclear whether this is easy to port into the current 
version; or better to wait for upstream 5.1.0 source tarball.

Thanks,
-Steve

[1] https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364258
[2] https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365135



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.