[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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

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"? 

And with "gimp-beta <= 2.0", what would you do with any release

Also, the different base package name is good to distinguish the extra
gimp2 packages from the gimp packages in Fedora Core:

$ rpm -qa 'gimp*'

> - 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.
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.

> /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 think the desktop file should reflect that this is still a beta
> version, even though it's close it's not yet "GIMP 2"

Not an issue for a package in an "unstable" extras repository. The
splash screen, "About" and other parts contain the 1.3.21 version
number. Apart from that, gimp2 doesn't put an entry in the top-level
desktop menu where the "stable" 1.2.3 version can be found. But
package description/summary could mention somewhere that it's a beta

- -- 
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]