Re: Gimp Fails to Build
Yves de Champlain <yves@gnu-darwin.org> on Monday, April 30, 2007 at 8:51 PM -0800 wrote:
Is there any reason why we shouldn't just update gimp to the current gimp-2 version? Nothing depends upon it according to pipping's find_dependents.pl script.
good idea, if no objections come in, I'll just do that.
I don't get it. So we'll have duplicate ports with different names? Mark
On 01/05/2007, at 15:05, markd@macports.org wrote:
Yves de Champlain <yves@gnu-darwin.org> on Monday, April 30, 2007 at 8:51 PM -0800 wrote:
Is there any reason why we shouldn't just update gimp to the current gimp-2 version? Nothing depends upon it according to pipping's find_dependents.pl script.
good idea, if no objections come in, I'll just do that.
I don't get it. So we'll have duplicate ports with different names?
For now, yes, but I reckon that, since nothing depends on gimp, we can just keep increasing its version to 3.x.x or whatever it becomes in the future, while leaving gimp2 as the latest 2.x.x release. This is a bit new compared to the naming scheme that seems to have been used so far, but I think would be sensible for those people and packages that want to track the latest and greatest, while giving an option for sticking with earlier versions where necessary. I've been thinking about this with respect to the docbook ports, too, particularly with the impending version 5 release. I envisage something like: docbook412 (4.1.2) docbook43 (4.3.x) docbook44 (4.4.x) docbook45 (4.5.x) docbook4 (4.x.x) docbook50 (5.0.x) docbook5 (5.x.x) docbook (whatever the latest is) There might be consequences, however, how we maintain ports in future, and it also seems like a bit of a departure from how things have been done before, so it might be best to hold off until there has been some wider discussion, especially on macports-dev (where I've been intending to raise this anyway). Still, I think that the fact that people are expecting the gimp port to be the latest version is understandable and a sensible thing to try to conform to. Kind regards, Maun Suang -- Boey Maun Suang (Boey is my surname) Email: boeyms@macports.org
Here is what I did gimp is now the same port as gimp2 when 2.4 comes out, I will remove both gimp-dev (2.3.x) and gimp2 yves Le 07-05-01 à 05:05, Boey Maun Suang a écrit :
On 01/05/2007, at 15:05, markd@macports.org wrote:
Yves de Champlain <yves@gnu-darwin.org> on Monday, April 30, 2007 at 8:51 PM -0800 wrote:
Is there any reason why we shouldn't just update gimp to the current gimp-2 version? Nothing depends upon it according to pipping's find_dependents.pl script.
good idea, if no objections come in, I'll just do that.
I don't get it. So we'll have duplicate ports with different names?
For now, yes, but I reckon that, since nothing depends on gimp, we can just keep increasing its version to 3.x.x or whatever it becomes in the future, while leaving gimp2 as the latest 2.x.x release. This is a bit new compared to the naming scheme that seems to have been used so far, but I think would be sensible for those people and packages that want to track the latest and greatest, while giving an option for sticking with earlier versions where necessary. I've been thinking about this with respect to the docbook ports, too, particularly with the impending version 5 release. I envisage something like:
docbook412 (4.1.2) docbook43 (4.3.x) docbook44 (4.4.x) docbook45 (4.5.x) docbook4 (4.x.x) docbook50 (5.0.x) docbook5 (5.x.x) docbook (whatever the latest is)
There might be consequences, however, how we maintain ports in future, and it also seems like a bit of a departure from how things have been done before, so it might be best to hold off until there has been some wider discussion, especially on macports-dev (where I've been intending to raise this anyway). Still, I think that the fact that people are expecting the gimp port to be the latest version is understandable and a sensible thing to try to conform to.
Kind regards,
Maun Suang
-- Boey Maun Suang (Boey is my surname) Email: boeyms@macports.org
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
On May 1, 2007, at 14:51, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On May 1, 2007, at 15:46, Yves de Champlain wrote:
gimp is now the same port as gimp2
when 2.4 comes out, I will remove both gimp-dev (2.3.x) and gimp2
What will happen for users who currently have gimp2 or gimp-dev installed?
Can anything happen? They'll have to switch to the 'gimp' port.
Le 07-05-01 à 17:51, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
On May 1, 2007, at 15:46, Yves de Champlain wrote:
gimp is now the same port as gimp2
when 2.4 comes out, I will remove both gimp-dev (2.3.x) and gimp2
What will happen for users who currently have gimp2 or gimp-dev installed?
I'll probably first replace the ports with a message saying what's going on. I think it's fair because, for gimp2 users, the variants scheme will change and for gimp-dev users, well it won't make sense anymore to have the 2.3.x development branch installed when 2.4 is out. Unless gimp-dev goes on with 2.5.x but I would not bet on it. Of course, I'm open to other ideas. yves
Le 07-05-01 à 19:04, Landon Fuller a écrit :
On May 1, 2007, at 14:51, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On May 1, 2007, at 15:46, Yves de Champlain wrote:
gimp is now the same port as gimp2
when 2.4 comes out, I will remove both gimp-dev (2.3.x) and gimp2
What will happen for users who currently have gimp2 or gimp-dev installed?
Can anything happen? They'll have to switch to the 'gimp' port.
They could wait forever for an upgrade ... yves
participants (5)
-
Boey Maun Suang
-
Landon Fuller
-
markd＠macports.org
-
Ryan Schmidt
-
Yves de Champlain