Gimp 1.3 packages, was: New extra packages and yum repository
nphilipp at redhat.com
Wed Oct 15 21:59:14 UTC 2003
On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 18:25, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:26:43 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > A few points I'd like to discuss and/or noticed (after comparing the
> > gimp2 and gimp-beta packages):
> > - whether it should be called gimp2 or gimp-beta -- gimp2 makes sense if
> > the final package also will be called gimp2, gimp-beta could be easily
> > obsoleted in any later final package ("gimp-beta <= 2.0")
> Not a big issue.
> What about "Obsoletes: gimp2 < 2.0-0.fdr.1"?
Uhm, I didn't make my (small) point very clear here. What I meant is
that gimp-beta can be a catch-all so that you can do "Obsoletes:
gimp-beta < $currentversion" -- this works whether it's the 1.3 beta,
the 1.1 beta, ... You don't have to individually mark all older versions
> And with "gimp-beta <= 2.0", what would you do with any release
If you have the final, I venture you don't care anymore about the RCs
being installed ;-).
> Also, the different base package name is good to distinguish the extra
> gimp2 packages from the gimp packages in Fedora Core:
> $ rpm -qa 'gimp*'
same thing with gimp-beta IMO.
> > - whether or not to explicitly list directories - I guess this makes
> > sense for /etc/gimp, but e.g. /usr/share/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES or
> Some of the locale directories are not owned by glibc-common.
This is a bug in glibc-common which should not be tried to
fix/circumvent in other packages.
> One of the goals of owning directories is, that
> - when the package is installed with a restrictive umask, the
> directories which are created get good permissions,
> - when the package is uninstalled, empty directories are not
> left behind.
> Redundancy with regard to owning directories below /usr/share/locale
> doesn't hurt, does it?
> You have missed /etc/gimp, /usr/lib/gimp, /usr/lib/gimp/1.3/environ,
> and /usr/share/gimp.
I didn't try to give a complete list.
> > /usr/include don't belong in gimp packages
> Correct. Minor glitch. One of the previous gimp2 packages was
> relocated to a different root directory.
> > - whether or not gimptool-1.3 belongs into the -devel package
> Looks like a devel tool. But since it also provides options for
> installation of .scm scripts into user's directories, it makes sense
> to keep it in the main package.
> > - I moved the devel docs from /usr/share/gtk-doc to
> > /usr/share/doc/gimp-beta-devel-.../
> /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/<packagename> is a place where "devhelp" looks
> for manuals.
I thought I was missing something here.
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp at redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20031015/531d3523/attachment-0002.bin
More information about the devel