> On 13/05/2024 00:58, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> The gimp package should be updated to 3.0, and the existing 2.x version
> should move to the gimp2 compatibility package.
I'm inclined to agree, not JUST because it makes sense from an update
perspective, but because it's the EXACT example used in
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:27:33AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:22 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
> > On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > > Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40?
> > Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping
> > t
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:22 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40?
Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping
through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the OS – or
wait for F
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 23:22, Nils Philippsen wrote:
[...]
> Let me try to clarify: Offering both major versions is mainly to cater
> for existing projects people might have. It’s hardly a maintenance
> burden as long as the dependencies are still available, at some point
> this might change and
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
...
> > Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40?
>
> Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping
> through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 13:24 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 11:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 a
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 13:27, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:49:47 +0200
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
[...]
> > Also, how did this pass review?
> >
> > License:LGPLv3+
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3/blob/rawhide/f/gimp3.spec
> contains
>
> License:
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 13:09 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 12:14, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 8:38 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 13/05/2024 13:24, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > If I’m not off track, renaming the existing version to “gimp2” would at
> > least make people install it as an update to “gimp-2.10.x” without any
> > real benefit to them. And it wo
On 13/05/2024 13:24, Nils Philippsen wrote:
If I’m not off track, renaming the existing version to “gimp2” would at
least make people install it as an update to “gimp-2.10.x” without any
real benefit to them. And it would make ”gimp” jump to version 3 which
is wildly different
Fedora is a bleed
On 13/05/2024 00:58, Sérgio Basto wrote:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
The gimp package should be updated to 3.0, and the existing 2.x version
should move to the gimp2 compatibility package.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
--
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 13:24 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
Hi everyone,
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 11:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto
wrote:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
What th
On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:49:47 +0200
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? This should have be
Hi everyone,
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 11:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck?
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 12:14, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
On 13. 05. 24 12:34, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Sun,
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? Th
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> >
>
> What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
> gimp3 for the new version...
Also, how did this pass rev
Well this is surprising. I agree it would be better to have either gimp2
repo or just private branch with GIMP 3 preparations under current GIMP
repository. But at the same time I understand Nil's workflow.
I just hope once the GIMP 3 is out and buildable/operational in Fedora
rawhide the gimp3 re
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 5:09 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 17:00 -0600, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for th
On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 17:00 -0600, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> >
>
> What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
> gimp3 for the new version...
Well I'm thinking h
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
>
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
>
What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
gimp3 for the new version...
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
_
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 20:43 +0200, Josef Řídký wrote:
> I believe once the GIMP 3.0 is out the Fedora version will follow
> almost immediately.
>
> Josef
> GIMP co-maintainer
>
> Dne po 6. 5. 2024 22:13 uživatel Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> naps
I believe once the GIMP 3.0 is out the Fedora version will follow almost
immediately.
Josef
GIMP co-maintainer
Dne po 6. 5. 2024 22:13 uživatel Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> napsal:
> Hi!
>
> I noticed that GIMP 3.0 is scheduled[1] for release in June. It'd be
> nice t
Josef Řídký wrote:
> The file-dds plugin directory has available COPYING file which is
> GPL-2.0-only original text (with accuracy 0.983).
It is normal for GPL-2.0-or-later code to come with a copy of the GPLv2
COPYING. You cannot distinguish GPL-2.0-only from GPL-2.0-or-later from the
COPYING f
So, without getting into the issue of whether it actually makes sense to
track differences between GPLvn "only" vs "or-later", since this is just
continuing a practice that was in place in Fedora for years (I think ever
since 2008 at least?): This is where you can't really rely on askalono,
because
This license was mentioned in the output of the 'askalono' command run over
the gimp source code.
The file-dds plugin directory has available COPYING file which is
GPL-2.0-only original text (with accuracy 0.983).
It's true that no other checks were made upon files there as I didn't
expect to have
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 3:54 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
> The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
> distribution not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the
> GPL-3.0-only
>
> Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugin.
>
Curious why you say th
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:53:25AM +0200, Josef Řídký wrote:
> The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
> distribution
> not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the GPL-3.0-only
>
> Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugin.
> Explicitly l
The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
distribution not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the
GPL-3.0-only
Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugin.
Explicitly licensed under BSD-3-Clause are 'script-fu/ftx' and
'script-fu/tinyscheme'
Josef Řídký wrote:
> Based on the SPDX requirements, that should be correct. Some parts of the
> package are available under GPL-2.0-only and some under GPL-3.0-only
> license.
And they are not linked together? Because if they are, we have a problem!
Kevin Kofler
_
Based on the SPDX requirements, that should be correct. Some parts of the
package are available under GPL-2.0-only and some under GPL-3.0-only
license.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:34 PM Kevin Kofler via deve
Josef Řídký wrote:
> AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only
Oops?
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedorapro
Good point. Thanks for the typo correction.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 2:35 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:22 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
> >
> > A license of "gimp" package was corrected from
>
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:22 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
>
> A license of "gimp" package was corrected from
> GPLv3+ and GPLv3
> to
> GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND BSD-3.0-Clause
>
Do you mean "BSD-3-Clause"? I don't know of a "BSD-3.0-Clause"...
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, the
On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 23:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
>
> Not an a
Nils Philippsen wrote:
> Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
Not an actual answer to your question, but wouldn't the license of the PDF
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 21:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
> >
> > if you combin
On 14:50 Thu 01 Sep , Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
> > the stove on.
> >
> > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > > Here's the gist (in no parti
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
> the stove on.
>
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Here's the gist (in no particular order):
>
> - GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as "
On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 15:03 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 05:28 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> >
> > You're probably referring to the updates 2.2->2.4 in '07 and 2.4->2.6 in
> > '08 but please keep in mind that we're stuck with 2.6.x as the stable
> > branch since then, so there's no rea
On 08/25/2011 05:28 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> You're probably referring to the updates 2.2->2.4 in '07 and 2.4->2.6 in
> '08 but please keep in mind that we're stuck with 2.6.x as the stable
> branch since then, so there's no reason to be gloomy about the Fedora
> side just yet.
I remember ho
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 21:29 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:34:00PM -0300, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> > is this a good reason ?
> > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/23/1355225/The-GIMP-Now-Has-a-Working-Single-Window-Mode
>
> That's a great example of what shouldn't
> > You mean something like this?
> >
> > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/luya/gimp/
That repo is updated to 2.7.3.
Regards,
Luya
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:34:00PM -0300, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> is this a good reason ?
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/23/1355225/The-GIMP-Now-Has-a-Working-Single-Window-Mode
That's a great example of what shouldn't happen _inside_ a release. New
releases come out twice a year -- w
Petr Machata wrote:
> Is that actually possible? I seem to recall that the reason why Firefox
> can be called Firefox in Fedora, and not, say, Iceweasel or whatever, is
> that we ship vanilla upstream.
I have always said that if we can't ship Firefox with that name while
following the Fedora pol
On 08/25/2011 01:18 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> Side-by-side means into the same prefix. You can only have one gimp
> version installed into the /usr prefix, you're free to install a
> different one into /opt/gimp-x.y or somewhere into your home if you're
> an ordinary user.
>
> Nils
Ah tha
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>>> The other option is for someone to build packages and host them on
>>> fedorapeople.org as a personal repository.
>>>
>>> I ce
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 11:58 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 10:28 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> > As well, installing both stable versions side-by-side isn't an option as
> > you can't install them into the same prefix: the libraries have the same
> > SONAME, the new ones are expect
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:58:29AM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 10:28 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> > As well, installing both stable versions side-by-side isn't an option as
> > you can't install them into the same prefix: the libraries have the same
> > SONAME, the new ones are
On 08/25/2011 12:00 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 08/25/2011 10:28 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>>
>>> As well, installing both stable versions side-by-side isn't an option as
>>> you can't install them into the same prefix: the libraries h
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 10:28 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
>> As well, installing both stable versions side-by-side isn't an option as
>> you can't install them into the same prefix: the libraries have the same
>> SONAME, the new ones are expected to
On 08/25/2011 10:28 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> As well, installing both stable versions side-by-side isn't an option as
> you can't install them into the same prefix: the libraries have the same
> SONAME, the new ones are expected to be ABI compatible. Therefore I
> don't see a real alternative
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 10:15 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> On 08/23/2011 11:34 PM, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Are there any plans to bring gimp 2.7.x -> 2.8 into F16 ?
Petr Machata writes:
> Kevin Kofler writes:
>
>>> It's not the Firefox maintainers, it is Mozilla who have decided that
>>> release numbers are irrelevant and that the bug fix release for
>>> Firefox 5 is Firefox 6.
>>
>> If Firefox were following the update policy, they'd backport the security
Kevin Kofler writes:
>> It's not the Firefox maintainers, it is Mozilla who have decided that
>> release numbers are irrelevant and that the bug fix release for
>> Firefox 5 is Firefox 6.
>
> If Firefox were following the update policy, they'd backport the security
> fixes, not push the new vers
On 08/25/2011 04:56 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> If Firefox were following the update policy, they'd backport the security
> fixes, not push the new versions.
That is just not true
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Security_fixes
"If upstream does not provide security fixes for a parti
Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> In addition to the warning that Gimp 2.7.* is considered unstable and
> not to be used in production (aka in a distribution),
That's why my point is that F16 should ship with 2.6 and get upgraded to 2.8
once it is stable.
> it comes with a warning that they are cleaning
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> The other option is for someone to build packages and host them on
>> fedorapeople.org as a personal repository.
>>
>> I certainly wouldn't mind trying 2.7+ but I would like the abilit
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> It could be built to be installed in parallel with 2.6 - which would
>> allow those who want to test/play with it.
>
> The other option is for someone to build packages and host them
On 08/24/2011 05:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> It is also utterly ridiculous and pointless if you consider the fact
> that the Firefox maintainers are allowed to push major (first digit!
> Not minor like 2.6 to 2.8) version increments as "security" updates…
> (Ironically, Firefox used to be one of t
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> It could be built to be installed in parallel with 2.6 - which would
> allow those who want to test/play with it.
The other option is for someone to build packages and host them on
fedorapeople.org as a personal repository.
I certainly w
It could be built to be installed in parallel with 2.6 - which would
allow those who want to test/play with it.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:41:41 +0200, you wrote:
>Nicu Buculei wrote:
>> And we the people using it for real work still remember the times when
>> Fedora used to be a bleeding edge distro and had such GIMP updated...
>
>+1
>
>The new update strategy (because it IS new, contrary to what some lazy
>m
Nicu Buculei wrote:
> And we the people using it for real work still remember the times when
> Fedora used to be a bleeding edge distro and had such GIMP updated...
+1
The new update strategy (because it IS new, contrary to what some lazy
maintainers who always refused to follow the old policy o
On 08/23/2011 11:34 PM, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>>
>>> Are there any plans to bring gimp 2.7.x -> 2.8 into F16 ?
>>
>> Is there a specific reason to? The home page states that t
On 08/24/2011 02:04 AM, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> is this a good reason ?
>
>
>
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/23/1355225/The-GIMP-Now-Has-a-Working-Single-Window-Mode
Not to push a unstable release without knowing when the stable release
will be.
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
On 08/24/2011 01:57 AM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
>>> Are there any plans to bring gimp 2.7.x -> 2.8 into F16 ?
>> Is there a specific reason to? The home page states that the whole
>> 2.7.x series should be considered unstable.
> Alright, would then the 2.8.x series be in F16?
That depends on when it i
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>> Are there any plans to bring gimp 2.7.x -> 2.8 into F16 ?
>
> Is there a specific reason to? The home page states that the whole
> 2.7.x series should be considered unstable.
>
2011/8/23 Ilyes Gouta :
>>> Are there any plans to bring gimp 2.7.x -> 2.8 into F16 ?
>>
>> Is there a specific reason to? The home page states that the whole
>> 2.7.x series should be considered unstable.
>
> Alright, would then the 2.8.x series be in F16?
I'm afraid that it is not the right lis
>> Are there any plans to bring gimp 2.7.x -> 2.8 into F16 ?
>
> Is there a specific reason to? The home page states that the whole
> 2.7.x series should be considered unstable.
Alright, would then the 2.8.x series be in F16?
-Ilyes
>
> Richard
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproj
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> Are there any plans to bring gimp 2.7.x -> 2.8 into F16 ?
Is there a specific reason to? The home page states that the whole
2.7.x series should be considered unstable.
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http
75 matches
Mail list logo
