GIMP *final* release for Gutsy?

[Scott (angrykeyboarder)]

Emmet Hikory spake thusly:
> On 11/9/07, Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote:
>> Scott Kitterman spake thusly :
>>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:48:55 -0700 "Scott (angrykeyboarder)"  wrote:
>>>> Gutsy shipped with a *non-final* release of The GIMP (2.4 RC3, to be
>>>> specific).
>>>>
>>>> In situations of this type (my) logic would dictate that Gutsy would be
>>>> updated (gutsy-updates?) with the Final version soon after it's release
>>>> (rather than leave users with an unfinished product in main).
>>>>
>>> As a rule, developers aren't terribly impressed by version numbers.
>>> What problem are you  having that you think this would fix and that is severe enough to warrant a stable release
>>> update?
>> None that would "interest" [some Ubuntu] developers, I suppose....
>>
>> OK...
> 
>     It is important to understand the nature of the issue.  Many of
> the bugfixes that are applied in upstream GIMP 2.4 final are also
> included in the current Ubuntu package (although the version number is
> different).

This is to confuse us, correct? ;)

> If there is a specific bug that needs to be addressed, or
> a specific patch that should be applied, emphasis on this issue would
> spur resolution.

*Of course* there are (were) bugs. Upstream stable is now a .1 release.

https://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-announce/2007-October/000089.html


> 
>     If the only issue is the text of the version string, without
> behavioral impact, the developer time may be more beneficially
> applied to resolution of more significant bugs, or preparation of the
> next release.
> 
>> Off to plan B.
>>
>> getdeb.net
>>
>> Oh wait, Ubuntu developers get upset when users go elsewhere for updated
>> versions of software...
> 
>     No so much upset, but that packages from external repositories
> cannot be supported (as the specifics of the packaging are not
> controlled by Ubuntu).  It may be that the getdeb.net package is
> perfect, but it may also be that it is not.


And my whole point is that if developers would start thinking more like
users (especially the users the SABDFL strives to attract) getdeb.net
wouldn't exist.

For the record, I'm no fan of getdeb.net.  In general, If Ubuntu isn't
interested in providing me with the software I want or need, I go to
prefer "third party" apt repositories. They tend to make for much
smoother installs (comments on the getdeb.net page for GIMP 2.4.1 are a
classic example of why).


> 
>> Off to plan C.
>>
>> ?
> 
> https://launchpad.net/gutsy-backports/+filebug will be the solution,


> been there, done that.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gimp/+bug/157642/comments/6
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gimp/+bug/157642/comments/8

>...
> once available packaging for gimp 2.4.1 is adjusted to include
> existing Ubuntu changes.  This effort is currently in queue for
> available developer time.  This effort may be accelerated by
> investigation of the relevant Ubuntu variation, and the presentation
> of a patch for review by developers (although it may be slowed by
> interruption of the developers for repeated review of an incomplete
> patch).

I see.....


I guess I must get over "beta/rc" stigma......


For some strange reason I'd rather have a final release of a program
rather than a beta or a release candidate. I'm weird like that.

-- 
            Scott
http://angrykeyboarder.com
I've never used an OS I didn't (dis)like.
©2007 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wites Wesewved