Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
> On 13/05/2024 00:58, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > The gimp package should be updated to 3.0, and the existing 2.x version > should move to the gimp2 compatibility package. I'm inclined to agree, not JUST because it makes sense from an update perspective, but because it's the EXACT example used in that review exception guideline everyone keeps quoting. (Emphasis added...) > The Packaging Committee can grant exceptions to the normal package review > process. This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages > are being submitted at once OR IF A PACKAGE IS BEING UPDATED TO A NEW MAJOR > VERSION WHILE THE OLD VERSION IS BEING KEPT IN THE DISTRIBUTION WITH A > DIFFERENT NAME. I feel like it's an example for a reason. Nils, you keep saying (and even wrote in the Proposed Change doc), "I don't want to have to get a Python2 exception for a new gimp2 package". But the above quote /explicitly/ says you can ask the packaging committee to bless gimp2 as a simple rename for an existing package, in which case it's not subject to the normal package review or exception requirements. This. Exact. Situation. is even used as the prototypical example of why such exceptions would be sought! -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:27:33AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:22 Nils Philippsen napsal(a): > > On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40? > > Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping > > through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the OS – or > > wait for Fedora 41 to be at a level of stability acceptable to them – > > before they can use the new version. > > > I am not against Gimp 3 in F40 and older per se. But the issue is that it > drives you towards `gimp3` for compatibility reasons. IOW I think that it > would be perfectly fine to have Gimp 2 (gimp package) as default in F40 and > Gimp 3 (still gimp package) in F41+. Because while they might be > substantially different, the change happens with major Fedora version and > users should be prepared for such changes. > > IOW situation would be much easier if `gimp` package was Gimp 2 up until F40 > and Gimp 3 since F41. Optionally, it would also make sense to provide > `gimp2` package in F41 for backward compatibility. That is all true, but this approach is still compatible with the way that the repos and srpms are named. It's entirely fine to build gimp.srpm → gimp.rpm and gimp3.srpm → gimp3.rpm in F40, and gimp.srpm → gimp2.rpm and gimp3.srpm → gimp.rpm in F41+. This is similar to how python3.rpm is currently build from python3.12.srpm in F40 and python3.13.srpm in F41. Zbyszek -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:22 Nils Philippsen napsal(a): On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40? Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the OS – or wait for Fedora 41 to be at a level of stability acceptable to them – before they can use the new version. I am not against Gimp 3 in F40 and older per se. But the issue is that it drives you towards `gimp3` for compatibility reasons. IOW I think that it would be perfectly fine to have Gimp 2 (gimp package) as default in F40 and Gimp 3 (still gimp package) in F41+. Because while they might be substantially different, the change happens with major Fedora version and users should be prepared for such changes. IOW situation would be much easier if `gimp` package was Gimp 2 up until F40 and Gimp 3 since F41. Optionally, it would also make sense to provide `gimp2` package in F41 for backward compatibility. Vít OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 23:22, Nils Philippsen wrote:
[...]
> Let me try to clarify: Offering both major versions is mainly to cater
> for existing projects people might have. It’s hardly a maintenance
> burden as long as the dependencies are still available, at some point
> this might change and then the 2.x package will be retired. I have my
> reasons for naming the set of packages ("gimp", "gimp3") rather than
> ("gimp2", "gimp") which you might not find convincing, but in the end
> which package gets the versioned name and which doesn’t is an
> implementation detail – many people use package management software
> which doesn’t display these front and center.
Not moving the "gimp" RPM to 3.x once it's released is arguably contrary
to Fedora principle of being "First". Historically, when some upstream
released a new major version, Fedora packaging followed it and,
sometimes, kept the older version as a separate, version-suffixed
package. This was accompanied by a Change and I think it makes sense to
do a Self-Contained Change upgrading gimp to GIMP 3.0 and introducing
gimp2 for those who need it in F41.
You still have plenty of time (until Jul 16th) to write up and submit
the Change. By that time, GIMP 3.0 will very likely be out already,
so by F41 release, GIMP users will be aware that 3.0 is out. I think
it's both safe and expected to move the main gimp package to 3.0 and
upgrade users automatically in F41.
Do you have any convincing arguments to do otherwise?
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora https://fedoraproject.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
--
___
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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Nils Philippsen wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: ... > > Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40? > > Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping > through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the OS – or > wait for Fedora 41 to be at a level of stability acceptable to them – > before they can use the new version. Right, if there's no technical reason not to backport it, you absolutely should. You should ALSO make sure to file a Change Proposal to make sure that people know it's coming to Fedora 41, if only for the marketing benefit. For example, I submit a Change every year for new Node.js major versions (the latest of which becomes the default in the next release), but I also always make the parallel-installable version available on the prior releases. They just don't own the default locations (/usr/bin/node et. al.). -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 13:24 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
> > 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
> > > >
> > > > 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
>
>
> Am I supposed to read this that over time, GIMP3 will get closer to
> GIMP2 and once they are identical, the switch will be painless? I
> don't
> think this is the plan.
No, I just wanted to point out the issues I have with continuing GIMP
2.x in a `gimp2` package and bumping the `gimp` version to carry
version 3. Another reason I forgot about is that, as I understand it,
no new package using Python 2.x may be added to the distro and I don’t
want to trouble the Packaging Committee for an exception.
> Look at e.g. Python. How long it took to migrate and have we migrated
> to
> Python 3 when everything was ready? Hardly. There was just pain
> during
> all the years. Or look at DNF.
I’m not sure what you mean by mentioning these examples.
> ntroducing GIMP 3 package is just extending pain. Nothing more. If
> somebody wants to stick with GIMP2 for whatever reason, they can pin
> their version or if you want to be super nice, provide the gimp2
> package.
Let me try to clarify: Offering both major versions is mainly to cater
for existing projects people might have. It’s hardly a maintenance
burden as long as the dependencies are still available, at some point
this might change and then the 2.x package will be retired. I have my
reasons for naming the set of packages ("gimp", "gimp3") rather than
("gimp2", "gimp") which you might not find convincing, but in the end
which package gets the versioned name and which doesn’t is an
implementation detail – many people use package management software
which doesn’t display these front and center.
> > (and would probably go against package
> > compatibility guidelines if done in Fedora <= 40).
>
>
> Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40?
Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping
through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the OS – or
wait for Fedora 41 to be at a level of stability acceptable to them –
before they can use the new version.
Ciao,
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Senior Software Engineer / Red Hat
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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 13:27, Dan Horák wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:49:47 +0200 > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: [...] > > Also, how did this pass review? > > > > License:LGPLv3+ > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3/blob/rawhide/f/gimp3.spec > contains > > License: LGPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later > AND BSD-3-Clause AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND CC0 > > since its import, with a comment about the details. It looks good to > me. Where did you find the LGPLv3+? In the subpackages, which Nils has confirmed he missed: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3/blob/rawhide/f/gimp3.spec#_186 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3/blob/rawhide/f/gimp3.spec#_204 Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://fedoraproject.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 13:09 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 12:14, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > > domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > > > > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto > > > > 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... > > > > > > Also, how did this pass review? > > > > > > License: LGPLv3+ > > > > > > And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any > > > review > > > ticket. > > > > > > Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? > > > > Standard procedure, everything seems to be in order: > > > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152 > > Thanks, I couldn't find the link. > > > The review exception is valid because it's an alternative version > > of an > > existing package, and Nils is also the maintainer of the existing > > package. > > Sure. That doesn't excuse importing a spec that doesn't follow > current > packaging guidelines. It'd be nice if such requests had to pass at > least > some automated checks (like successful scratch build, installability > check, > SPDX validation, i.e. basic sanity checks) before human approval is > sought. > I expect nobody wants to import broken stuff knowingly, but these > things > can be missed. You’re totally right. > > While most people prefer that alternative versions carry a "compat" > > suffix > > (i.e. the new version is the one without the suffix, and the old > > version > > has the suffix), this is - contrary to popular belief - not > > actually > > required or even mentioned in the packaging guidelines. > > Also correct. > > And Nils, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. Just that it'd be a > good idea to announce this, even if to invite testers. And here, too. 😉 I shouldn’t have rushed things with the new package as much as I did, neither should I have kept it to myself. You’d think by now I would have learned to communicate ahead of time… 🫣 > I actually have a > GIMP user at home who might want to check it out. Thanks for working > on > the new GIMP version! Great to hear! I’ll fix the outstanding issues I’m aware of shortly (with a little more diligence) and will hopefully have something testable finished soon. Ciao, Nils > > Regards, > Dominik > -- > Fedora https://fedoraproject.org > Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical > universe that > makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic. > -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan > -- > ___ > 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 -- Nils Philippsen / Senior Software Engineer / Red Hat 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 8:38 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 13/05/2024 13:24, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > 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 > > Fedora is a bleeding edge distribution. All packages should be updated > to the latest releases. > > > and would probably go against package > > compatibility guidelines if done in Fedora <= 40 > > Major updates in stable Fedora releases are prohibited by the Updates > Policy[1]. > > [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ This is why the current "gimp version 3 is a new package" approach works better for stable branches: Existing users don't get the update, but can manually opt-in for testing. For rawhide (at least as soon as it's reasonable to do so), the thing can be reversed - package gimp v3 as "gimp" and move v2 to a "gimp2" package, so that users *do* get the upgrade at some point. Fabio -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On 13/05/2024 13:24, Nils Philippsen wrote: 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 Fedora is a bleeding edge distribution. All packages should be updated to the latest releases. and would probably go against package compatibility guidelines if done in Fedora <= 40 Major updates in stable Fedora releases are prohibited by the Updates Policy[1]. [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On 13/05/2024 00:58, Sérgio Basto wrote: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3 The gimp package should be updated to 3.0, and the existing 2.x version should move to the gimp2 compatibility package. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 13:24 Nils Philippsen napsal(a): 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 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 Am I supposed to read this that over time, GIMP3 will get closer to GIMP2 and once they are identical, the switch will be painless? I don't think this is the plan. Look at e.g. Python. How long it took to migrate and have we migrated to Python 3 when everything was ready? Hardly. There was just pain during all the years. Or look at DNF. Introducing GIMP 3 package is just extending pain. Nothing more. If somebody wants to stick with GIMP2 for whatever reason, they can pin their version or if you want to be super nice, provide the gimp2 package. (and would probably go against package compatibility guidelines if done in Fedora <= 40). Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40? Vít OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:49:47 +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 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... > > Also, how did this pass review? > > License:LGPLv3+ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3/blob/rawhide/f/gimp3.spec contains License: LGPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND CC0 since its import, with a comment about the details. It looks good to me. Where did you find the LGPLv3+? Dan -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
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 > > 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 12:14, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto 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... > > > > Also, how did this pass review? > > > > License:LGPLv3+ > > > > And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review > > ticket. > > > > Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? > > Standard procedure, everything seems to be in order: > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152 Thanks, I couldn't find the link. > The review exception is valid because it's an alternative version of an > existing package, and Nils is also the maintainer of the existing package. Sure. That doesn't excuse importing a spec that doesn't follow current packaging guidelines. It'd be nice if such requests had to pass at least some automated checks (like successful scratch build, installability check, SPDX validation, i.e. basic sanity checks) before human approval is sought. I expect nobody wants to import broken stuff knowingly, but these things can be missed. > While most people prefer that alternative versions carry a "compat" suffix > (i.e. the new version is the one without the suffix, and the old version > has the suffix), this is - contrary to popular belief - not actually > required or even mentioned in the packaging guidelines. Also correct. And Nils, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. Just that it'd be a good idea to announce this, even if to invite testers. I actually have a GIMP user at home who might want to check it out. Thanks for working on the new GIMP version! Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://fedoraproject.org Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic. -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > > > domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto > > 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... > > > > > > > > Also, how did this pass review? > > > > > > > > License:LGPLv3+ > > > > > > > > And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review > > > > ticket. > > > > > > > > Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? > > > > > > Standard procedure, everything seems to be in order: > > > > > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152 > > > > > > The review exception is valid because it's an alternative version of an > > > existing package, and Nils is also the maintainer of the existing > > package. > > > > It that exception automatic ? I thought it had to be explicitly > > requested from FPC ? eg in > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure > > > > It says: > > > > "The FPC can grant exceptions to the normal package review process. > >This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages > >are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a > >new major version while the old version is being kept in the > >distribution with a different name. > >.. > >Just file a ticket here, set the component to "Review Process Exception" > >and explain (with detail) why you're requesting the exemption and the > >committee will consider it in the next meeting. " > > > > So gimp3 falls under the 2nd example documented there, but still sounds > > like an FPC ticket was needed ? > > > > The wiki is outdated. All documentation from FPC has been moved to > docs.fp.o. > > The exceptions are documented here: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process FYI, the wiki isn't the only outdated place then, see also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#what "The Packaging Committee can grant exceptions to the normal package review process. This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a new major version while the old version is being kept in the distribution with a different name. The process for granting exceptions is described at Packaging Committee#Review Process Exemption Procedure." the latter being a link to the wiki page with outdated info > These cases are treated as "automatically approved" and don't need package > review nor FPC approval. Ok, does make sense to avoid "bureaucratic rubber stamping" wasting FPC time in the common case. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On 13. 05. 24 12:34, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto 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... Also, how did this pass review? License:LGPLv3+ And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review ticket. Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? Standard procedure, everything seems to be in order: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152 The review exception is valid because it's an alternative version of an existing package, and Nils is also the maintainer of the existing package. It that exception automatic ? I thought it had to be explicitly requested from FPC ? eg in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure It says: "The FPC can grant exceptions to the normal package review process. This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a new major version while the old version is being kept in the distribution with a different name. .. Just file a ticket here, set the component to "Review Process Exception" and explain (with detail) why you're requesting the exemption and the committee will consider it in the next meeting. " So gimp3 falls under the 2nd example documented there, but still sounds like an FPC ticket was needed ? This is documented here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process The section of the wiki page you linked should probably be updated/retired. Anyway, if packagers are abusing this exception to import packages which don't even build, perhaps we should revisit if this exception is needed. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > > domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > > > > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto > 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... > > > > > > Also, how did this pass review? > > > > > > License:LGPLv3+ > > > > > > And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review > > > ticket. > > > > > > Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? > > > > Standard procedure, everything seems to be in order: > > > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152 > > > > The review exception is valid because it's an alternative version of an > > existing package, and Nils is also the maintainer of the existing > package. > > It that exception automatic ? I thought it had to be explicitly > requested from FPC ? eg in > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure > > It says: > > "The FPC can grant exceptions to the normal package review process. >This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages >are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a >new major version while the old version is being kept in the >distribution with a different name. >.. >Just file a ticket here, set the component to "Review Process Exception" >and explain (with detail) why you're requesting the exemption and the >committee will consider it in the next meeting. " > > So gimp3 falls under the 2nd example documented there, but still sounds > like an FPC ticket was needed ? > The wiki is outdated. All documentation from FPC has been moved to docs.fp.o. The exceptions are documented here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process These cases are treated as "automatically approved" and don't need package review nor FPC approval. Fabio > With regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- > https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- > https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org-o- > https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > -- > ___ > 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 > -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto 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... > > > > Also, how did this pass review? > > > > License:LGPLv3+ > > > > And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review > > ticket. > > > > Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? > > Standard procedure, everything seems to be in order: > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152 > > The review exception is valid because it's an alternative version of an > existing package, and Nils is also the maintainer of the existing package. It that exception automatic ? I thought it had to be explicitly requested from FPC ? eg in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure It says: "The FPC can grant exceptions to the normal package review process. This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a new major version while the old version is being kept in the distribution with a different name. .. Just file a ticket here, set the component to "Review Process Exception" and explain (with detail) why you're requesting the exemption and the committee will consider it in the next meeting. " So gimp3 falls under the 2nd example documented there, but still sounds like an FPC ticket was needed ? With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto 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... > > Also, how did this pass review? > > License:LGPLv3+ > > And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review > ticket. > > Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? > Standard procedure, everything seems to be in order: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152 The review exception is valid because it's an alternative version of an existing package, and Nils is also the maintainer of the existing package. While most people prefer that alternative versions carry a "compat" suffix (i.e. the new version is the one without the suffix, and the old version has the suffix), this is - contrary to popular belief - not actually required or even mentioned in the packaging guidelines. Fabio > Regards, > Dominik > -- > Fedora https://fedoraproject.org > Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe > that > makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic. > -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan > -- > ___ > 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 > -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto 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... Also, how did this pass review? License:LGPLv3+ And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review ticket. Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://fedoraproject.org Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic. -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
Well this is surprising. I agree it would be better to have either gimp2 repo or just private branch with GIMP 3 preparations under current GIMP repository. But at the same time I understand Nil's workflow. I just hope once the GIMP 3 is out and buildable/operational in Fedora rawhide the gimp3 repository will become obsolete. Josef Dne po 13. 5. 2024 1:01 uživatel Neal Gompa napsal: > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto 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... > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > -- > ___ > 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 > -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 5:09 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 17:00 -0600, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto > > 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... > > Well I'm thinking how build imageMagick 7 on epel 9 > > could be an idea , So you suggest on epel9, ImageMagick move to > ImageMagick6 ? and build imagemagick 7 on imagemagick ? > Since it's not present in RHEL, yes. But we should absolutely avoid offering ImageMagick6 in EPEL. Having both is a recipe for a maintenance nightmare. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 17:00 -0600, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto > 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... Well I'm thinking how build imageMagick 7 on epel 9 could be an idea , So you suggest on epel9, ImageMagick move to ImageMagick6 ? and build imagemagick 7 on imagemagick ? > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > -- > ___ > 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 -- Sérgio M. B. -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto 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... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3 On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 20:43 +0200, Josef Řídký wrote: > I believe once the GIMP 3.0 is out the Fedora version will follow > almost immediately. > > Josef > GIMP co-maintainer > > Dne po 6. 5. 2024 22:13 uživatel Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > napsal: > > Hi! > > > > I noticed that GIMP 3.0 is scheduled[1] for release in June. It'd > > be > > nice to have it in F41. Are there any plans to do so? Do the > > maintainers > > (Cc'd) need any help? > > > > [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/10373#timeline > > > > Regards, > > Dominik > > -- > > ___ > > 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 -- Sérgio M. B. -- ___ 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
Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?
I believe once the GIMP 3.0 is out the Fedora version will follow almost immediately. Josef GIMP co-maintainer Dne po 6. 5. 2024 22:13 uživatel Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> napsal: > Hi! > > I noticed that GIMP 3.0 is scheduled[1] for release in June. It'd be > nice to have it in F41. Are there any plans to do so? Do the maintainers > (Cc'd) need any help? > > [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/10373#timeline > > Regards, > Dominik > -- > Fedora https://fedoraproject.org > Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe > that > makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic. > -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan > > -- ___ 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
GIMP 3.0 in F41?
Hi! I noticed that GIMP 3.0 is scheduled[1] for release in June. It'd be nice to have it in F41. Are there any plans to do so? Do the maintainers (Cc'd) need any help? [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/10373#timeline Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://fedoraproject.org Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic. -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan -- ___ 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
