Spec URL: <http://www.moodle-fcps1.org/guest_ftp/> SRPM URL: <http://www.moodle-fcps1.org/guest_ftp/> Description: <scribus-1.3.3.3-0.FC5.ppc | Using an existing .spec file, I built the latest version of scribus, linux desktop publishing, for the ppc because there wasn't a recent build in any repo.>
Mike: Scribus is already in Extras (as you mentioned), so this seems to me nothing more than a request for the package in Extras to be updated to this new version. I'm changing the bug metadata to reflect that. Thanks.
Oh, sorry. I thought this was the place. Well, we still need more current builds of Scribus. I'll volunteer to keep the ppc pkg current, if you guys want some help.
fixed and pushed new version
"[F]ixed and pushed new version" doesn't resolve the problem. Are you going to keep the pkg current? The nine month old pkg was that in Fedora Extras is shameful. If Fedora is ever going to be a true desktop OS, then versions need to be kept current, and turnkey pkgs need to be available in a timely manner.
Please stick to the facts. The previous version was from Jun 18 which is according to my calculations about 3 month. In addition I don't believe that the difference between 1.3.3.{2,3} is so big as upstream states that this is a bugfix line for the development version... So to answer you: Yes I will keep thins up to date but not if poeple tell me my packaging is shameful!
There are some misunderstandings here, I think. It is Fedora Extras 5 which contains an old release of Scribus (1.2.4.1), but this ticket was filed about our development branch. I wonder why the community has not requested an update to 1.2.5 at least?
Yes, thank you Michael. I just changed this bug report to fc5, not devel. I don't know why it was listed as such. And yes, I also wonder why no one ever requested that Extras be updated to a current version of Scribus. The old version on Extras was crashing my system, that's why I interjected myself into this (and raised hell in the process). Normally, I would not have cared. So that this doesn't continue to happen, I think there needs to be a change. Sure, I can just selfishly build my own package (and to hell with everyone else), but keeping builds current is so easy and such a no-brainer... Andreas, the quality of your packages is not at issue - I think there's a language misunderstanding here. You are not keeping the Scribus package current, that's the fact here. Your latest build is from Feb 2006 (where do get the 3 months?) I glanced at your package responsibilities and I wonder if you are trying to do too much. It looks like you have a large number of packages that you are trying to maintain. In fact, I'm looking at Extras right now, and there's still not an updated version! Maybe it's time to abdicate just a few of your responsibilities? There's nothing wrong in admitting that you're just too busy? Cheers.
FYI: I just pushed 1.2.5 for fc{3,4,5} so this should solve the not being current issue. The release note must have slipped trough my inbox somehow otherwise I would have updated to 1.2.5 when it was released. I get the 3 month from looking at the devel packages (which this bug report was opened for...) und the last update was about 3 month ago not counting the update I pushed for 1.3.3.3 as a result of this bug (which is good). Now to the other part of your statment, altough I feel that this is not the place to talk about such things... Yes I do maintain a lot of packages in FE and I am trying to do the best I can to make everybody happy. Sometimes new releases slip trough because of various reasons... mainly because upstream forgets to upgrade e.g. freshmeat and I don't get mail or because I just miss new releases. I am happy if users open bug reports requesting new versions of a package as it helps me to keep things current. Ok in some cases it is a bit frustrating if sources are released and one hour later people ask me why this is not in FE yet... but that just as a sidenote... In general I am happy about such things... I don't know which informations you use to suggest that I am to busy... yes like everbody else here I have weeks where extras is not the first thing on my list and as a matter of fact the last 2-3 weeks were such weeks... but believe me... if I get to a point where I cannot find any time any more I will give up my job here... but not now ;) not after the stuff I went trough the last weeks not now that I managed to come back and work on FE and get everything in line for F{C,E}6. But maybe, just maybe we are talking about different things here... your request was for 1.3.3.3 which as stated on the scribus webpage is a bugfix release for a development version. This is why the development line is in devel only atm and will only be in devel. As a matter of fact I was thinking maybe to remove it from the repo and ship FE6 with 1.2.x but I won't as long as people don't have serious problems with it. Don't get me wrong... I like bleeding edge and I like the new scribus version but everything < FE6 will stick with the stable series till the scribus team is done with the current development version and releases it as a stable release. This has been good practice here for some time now so I hope you are ok with it... if you want I can build 1.3.3.x versions and push them to my repo so you can grep them for FC5 as well... as a service to those who want scribus development versions for FC5. Just let me know. And of course if you find a crash in a package report it here... I am the last one to ignore bug reports about crashes...
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Believe me, all your efforts ARE appreciated in FC6 and FC5. But... I don't see any reason NOT to keep both the 1.2.5 and 1.3.x versions in FE. Let users decide which one to use. I tried. Now I'll just make my own builds, and keep them to myself. Sorry guys. Cheers.
> I don't see any reason NOT to keep both the 1.2.5 and 1.3.x > versions in FE. Let users decide which one to use. That raises the question whether you really want to open such a can of worms? For multiple releases of an application to coexist nicely, it would be required to package them in separate rpms which don't conflict and which can be installed at once. Often that is the easy part. Now to the run-time side of it where the fun starts. Do both versions of the app share a common configuration? As soon as the user gives the development version a try, can you guarantee that he would be able to roll back to the stable version? That is, with his setup, his projects, etc? It can get really ugly in that area if the app does not offer ways to migrate back and forth between multiple versions. Just imagine what would happen if Scribus 1.4 comes out. Would it upgrade 1.2.5 or 1.3.x or both? Often it's impossible to please everyone. No harm is done by including a project's flagship release, which is Scribus 1.2.5, their official stable release, even if it may be older than bleeding-edge development stuff.