Why should I have to specify "gimp-2.0" when launching gimp, instead of just "gimp"? A simple symlink should fix that.
Is there any reason we must provide /usr/bin/gimp? If not, this is not a real issue.
Well, since Gimp 2.0 is actually an UPGRADE to Gimp 1.x (it replaces it, the ebuild does not install it alongside the old version, nor is there any reason to). Many symblinks and menu items that assume the Gimp executable to be at /usr/bin/gimp will break. Besides, how many other application executable contain their current version number? What if (a few months down the road) we are at (for instance) version 2.3. I might still be used to typing "gimp-2.2" everytime I want to launch Gimp. It makes no sense. /usr/bin/gimp is supposed to exist. Period.
why do make these uninformed false claims ? It does install alongside gimp-1, sure there is be a reason (because people would like to have that freedom to use any version or maybe because it can be done, etc.). I don't know what symlinks you talk about, the desktop items work just fine like this (and this is by far the most used method of invocation no doubt). We cannot guarantee that /usr/bin/gimp is linked to any specific version (it is owned by multiple if we provide it), so we don't provide it at all. There is no confusion possible like this. I actually don't see the problem here.
There is one ebuild in Gentoo, called "gimp". No separate "gimp2" or something, just "gimp". That ebuild is currently at 2.0. "/usr/bin/gimp" was still there when the ebuild was at 1.x. Since upgrading to 2.0, it's no longer there. I noticed that the Gnome launcher has been updated accordingly. Very good. But wouldn't it save the developers a lot of hassle if they just kept "/usr/bin/gimp" linked to the current Gimp executable, instead of having to update the launcher (as well as any other possible shortcuts and dependencies) every time a new version comes out? As for gimp 1.x coexisting alongside gimp 2.0: I'm sure that's possible. But how hard could it be to implement some checking code that checks for this scenario, adds the symlink if it doesn't exist, or leaves it as is if it's already there? Likewise with unmerging: it checks if the symlink currently points to the version being unmerged, if so: the symlink is also removed. Otherwise, it remains untouched. Such checking code would be trivial. Of course, it's possible that there is an obvious reason why it's not done this way. If so, I would be interested to know why. FYI: I didn't submit this to look for trouble or anything. All I want to do is provide suggestions on how to improve Gentoo even further, just like all of you. I'm certain that I'm not the only one that expects to be able to run gimp by simply entering "gimp", just like it used to be.
there is no reason why someone who installs 2.0 cannot have 1.2 installed alongside (for whatever reason, afaik some functionality is still more complete in 1.2). /usr/bin/gimp is provided by 1.x and because we should not have 2 slots own the same file i removed the symlink from the gimp, 99,9% of the population out there won't notice. Yes it is possible to have some hack check possible versions and link to it, but who sais someone would prefer 2 over 1 automatically. Afaik this is something for the user to set up as they like. The desktop files don't have this issue, because they are versioned as it is. The /usr/bin/gimp link is a convenience, the binary is versioned. A convencience that -i think- is useless in most cases and confusing in others.
Very well, I will close this bug, then.
