Bug 569038 - Review Request: pinta - Simple painting for Gtk
Summary: Review Request: pinta - Simple painting for Gtk
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 590244
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: 578701 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2010-02-27 18:46 UTC by Sebastian Dziallas
Modified: 2010-05-08 11:40 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-05-06 11:38:58 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Sebastian Dziallas 2010-02-27 18:46:31 UTC
Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/pinta.spec
SRPM URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/pinta-0.1-1.20100227git.fc12.src.rpm

Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2018110
Description: This package is another one intended for the Design Suite.

Comment 1 Andrea Musuruane 2010-03-27 14:16:06 UTC
Pinta 0.2 is available. Please update.

Comment 2 Sebastian Dziallas 2010-03-28 17:58:14 UTC
Ayup, you're right! Thanks for the heads-up. Here's the updated package.

Anybody up for a review?

Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/pinta.spec

Comment 3 Andrea Musuruane 2010-03-30 13:47:13 UTC
It seems the icons are taken from paintdotnet 3.0. In this case they are not an acceptable content for Fedora because they are licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND.

Please read:

Please verify upstream if needed.

Comment 4 Sebastian Dziallas 2010-03-30 14:29:29 UTC
Thanks for the heads-up! I inquired with upstream early when packaging it and upstream added a line saying "Pinta does not use the Paint.NET logo or icon mentioned above." back then. This is also the reason why I packaged originally a GIT checkout, instead of version 0.1 (which didn't contain this note). Here's the link to the file, which should be in 0.2 now: http://github.com/jpobst/Pinta/blob/master/license-pdn.txt

Comment 5 Jason Tibbitts 2010-04-01 17:10:57 UTC
*** Bug 578701 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Andrea Musuruane 2010-04-18 10:35:39 UTC
Package do not work on 64 bits system. You are wrongly supposing that %{_libdir} is always /usr/lib.

From the Mono guidelines: "Mono installs binaries in %{_libdir}/<package>/bin with symlinks back to /usr/bin.". You didn't use %{_libdir}/<package>/bin but %{_libdir}/<package>.

Please use another name for the icon. Now you use applications-graphics.png and it is too generic and therefore it could conflict with other packages.

You should also add todo.txt to the docs.

You may also want to have a look at the Debian package for patches and other improvements (for example, the desktop file):

Comment 7 Andrea Musuruane 2010-05-02 08:26:50 UTC

Comment 8 Andrea Musuruane 2010-05-04 12:33:42 UTC
Pinta 0.3 is out:

Are you still interested in this review request?

Comment 9 Sebastian Dziallas 2010-05-06 11:38:58 UTC
I've been rotating around here while working out some parts of 'life' as marked here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Vacation :)

While I still think that Pinta is a cool application, I might not be able to continue to give it the attention it deserves. If somebody wants to package it, I'm willing to act as co-maintainer, though.

Comment 10 Chen Lei 2010-05-08 11:40:47 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 590244 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.