Summary: | gimp-2.2.x does not install gimptool symlink | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Denilson Sá Maia <denilsonsa> |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | John N. Laliberte (RETIRED) <allanonjl> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | minor | CC: | bug.hunter, henrik |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Denilson Sá Maia
2006-06-07 17:17:30 UTC
This is already fixed in media-gfx/gimp-9999. Allanonjl, will you backport it to gimp-2.2.11* (or should I)? I just discussed this with upstream in #gimp on GIMPNet: 21:33:55 < brix> would it be incorrect to install a "gimptool -> gimptool-2.0" symlink distribution wise? 21:39:21 < mitch> brix: um, don't we do that already? 21:40:27 < mitch> oh well no 21:41:09 < brix> mitch: I seem to recall something about plug-ins should not use "gimptool" - they should call the version of gimptool they support 21:41:44 * brix is preparing gentoo for gimp-2.4 21:42:46 < mitch> yes they should call gimptool-2.0 21:43:25 < brix> so a symlink shouldn't be installed? 21:43:30 < mitch> nope 21:43:33 < brix> ok, thanks I have therefore corrected gimp-9999.ebuild to not install the symlink, no backport needed. Closing this as INVALID (but it was a good question :) Just a little comment: gimp and gimp-remote symlinks were being created by different ways (in 2.2.x ebuilds). One was using "dosym", and the other "alternatives_auto_makesym". Would not be prefered if both were created the same way? Has this been fixed? (looking at 2.2.8-r1 ebuild, it was not fixed; though it was ok on 9999 ebuild) (In reply to comment #3) > Has this been fixed? (looking at 2.2.8-r1 ebuild, it was not fixed; though it > was ok on 9999 ebuild) Yeah, but it's not critical. |