Gimp 1.3 packages, was: New extra packages and yum repository

[Matthias Saou]

Nils Philippsen wrote :

> > Whether it makes sense to duplicate the packaging efforts, when
> > gimp2-1.3.21-0.fdr.1 is in the fedora.us publish queue, is a different
> > question. IMO both packagers should team up.
> 
> With pleasure ;-).
> 
> 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")
> - 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
> /usr/include don't belong in gimp packages
> - whether or not gimptool-1.3 belongs into the -devel package
> - I moved the devel docs from /usr/share/gtk-doc to
> /usr/share/doc/gimp-beta-devel-.../
> - the gimp2 package requires libaa, libexif, the gimp-beta package has a
> few more explicit requirements (which min versions of glib2, gtk2,
> pango, ...)
> - I think the desktop file should reflect that this is still a beta
> version, even though it's close it's not yet "GIMP 2"
> 
> Comments?

You can also check my spec file. Mine is actually called plain "gimp", so
you can either upgrade to it, or "rpm -ivh" it as no files conflict with
the stable gimp, although having "duplicate" packages other than kernels
doesn't make most dependency tools happy.

Why double efforts when they can be tripled? Uh, doesn't make sense?
Indeed, none whatsoever... I just started packaging it for myself a while
back.

http://freshrpms.net/packages/builds/index.html?build=gimp
http://ftp.freshrpms.net/pub/freshrpms/redhat/testing/9/gimp/

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 0.95 (Severn) - Linux kernel 2.4.22-20.1.2024.2.36.nptl
Load : 1.20 1.89 1.64