Re: gimp 1.1
It would help if you could warn me before upgrading libgimp* in
incompatible ways. If you told me about gimp1.2, I missed it, and I
Since gimp1.2 is really the new stable gimp, can't it be in a package
called gimp? The libraries are incompatible and need to be different
packages, but the package containing the executable can remain the
same. I know that provides sort of allows this, but it seems simpler
to give the stable version of the gimp executable the name gimp, even
though there are incompatibilities between different version of gimp.
Unless there is an objection, I will continue to use the names sane
and xsane for the versions of the executables which work with the
stable version of gimp. The reorganization of sane may force me to
reconsider this issue.
Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > >>>>> "Joey" == Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Joey> Do we actually need gimp1.1 and associated packages anymore?
> > Joey> gimp1.2 in in unstable.
> > Nope, go ahead and toss it if we can get the other libgimp1.1 using
> > packages out too..
> Looks like only gimp-python and [x]sane-gimp1.1 are holding this back,
> so I just filed bugs on them.
> see shy jo