7 ms·

Pinta seems like a decent replacement. https://pinta-project.com/pintaproject/pinta/ https://pinta-project.com/pintaproject/pinta/

baldfat 10y ago
WHY is it just a Ubuntu release and no RPM? I really HATE when developers go Ubuntu = Linux
- darklajid 10y ago
  I don't think that's their responsibility. Traditionally it's your distribution's job to create and provide packages. Arch Linux has one (I just installed it myself) and if we're talking rpm: Fedora has one as well, it seems [1]. So, what is upsetting you here, really? 1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/pinta%2A/ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/pinta%2A/
  - baldfat 10y ago
    > Traditionally it's your distribution's job to create and provide packages That has not been true in my 15 years of Linux. Look at bitsync, rstudio, or other major programs. Arch Linux must build off of the source so that isn't a fair comparison you are on a totally different system (port). EDIT: Here is the one page of documentation to push out deba nd rpm on mono projects. http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/linux/ci-packages/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/lin... I have seen electron applications (pinta isn't built on electron but mono) and in the same way ONLY Ubuntu is advertised under Linux. The ability to automatically build Linux formats is built into the framework and still don't add RPM. Linux: AppImage, deb, rpm, freebsd, pacman, p5p, apk. Still other eclectron applications do the same thing and ONLY provide Ubuntu and not provide the Deb or RPM with source. Look at the download page it says Linux and directly under it has a Ubuntu Logo and a ppa link. When I down load any of my commercial or major software there is always a RPM and a DEB with a tar. Linux Support = RPM (The official Linux Foundation package) DEB and Source. I use OpenSUSE and they have awesome build service that allows people to build packages for SUSE but also RPM, Arch and anyone else you want to add. https://software.opensuse.org/package/pinta https://software.opensuse.org/package/pinta
    - darklajid 10y ago
      (For this discussion, Arch Linux is working exactly like Debian/Fedora/Suse etc. - installing binary packages.) In my time with Linux using anything other than your distributions package tools is an exception and extremely rare. You might do that for - say - bitsync, because it is proprietary. Your distribution cannot use the same 'grab sources, compile against our current libraries and package it up' process. pinta instead follows the normal process. You install it by using your package tools. Your distributions created binary packages for you already, hosted on their infrastructure. Heck, even on Ubuntu you'd probably apt-get install pinta and get a different (Ubuntu provided) package instead. Check http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ and see what they do if you want to download their software (they tell you that your distribution is in charge and even mention why that is usually a good idea). PPAs and OBS offer ways to build packages, yes. But again, that's the exception - most of your packages aren't coming from there.
      - baldfat 10y ago
        > (For this discussion, Arch Linux is working exactly like Debian/Fedora/Suse etc. - installing binary packages.) It isn't its a ports system it compiles off of source. The Arch Build System is a ports-like system for building and packaging software from source code. While pacman is the specialized Arch tool for binary package management (including packages built with the ABS), ABS is a collection of tools for compiling source into installable .pkg.tar.xz packages. I have built and maintained packages for RPM and for Arch. They are different and that is the reason why in electron export Arch has a different system then deb or rpm. > In my time with Linux using anything other than your distributions package tools is an exception and extremely rare. That is your experience. Most Ubuntu and Arch people use AUR or ppa all the time. If I want the preview of RStudio (Open sourced and in my official repos) I down load and use the RPM. I do this all the time. If I want anything that was recently released I need to use the RPM and not the packages provided by my disto including rolling releases. > Check http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ and see what they do if you want to download their software (they tell you that your distribution is in charge and even mention why that is usually a good idea). I don't find much with the Gimp project to show as a positive example for other applications to follow. > PPAs and OBS offer ways to build packages, yes. But again, that's the exception - most of your packages aren't coming from there. Once again that isn't my experience and that is open to other people's needs. If you use AUR you also are not getting your packages from your official repos. Build a AUR and you will see. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository AUR are awesome BECAUSE it works with the source files in a port system. The only difference between a AUR and a binary you get from pacman is that it was compiled for you to skip the step of downloading the source and compile like you do in AUR.
- cosarara97 10y ago
  It's packagers of RPM distros that should build RPMs. Upstream can't be expected to release packages for every distro (if any).
  - baldfat 10y ago
    > Upstream can't be expected to release packages for every distro (if any). This isn't provide distro specific packages this is provide the one extra file over macOS and Windows. Also this is for the health of the Linux environment. That is why we have RPM and Deb they work for MANY distros and if your outside that then the source is there for aa build. One day appimage, flatpak or Snap will make this easier.
    - darklajid 10y ago
      No, RPM and Deb files don't work for many distributions. Yes, the formats are shared (say, RPM for Fedora, RedHat, Suse). But the resulting binaries aren't (usually, automatically - you might get lucky of course) compatible. The whole point of distributions is to build a system. Fedora and Suse are on different schedules, make different decisions about updates, might run different versions of the libraries your package (here: pinta) depends upon. Your RPM file often isn't even usable between different releases of the same distribution. So just adding a random RPM wouldn't make sense. You brought up OBS elsewhere: One of the major reasons that thing exists is so that you can build packages .. for a list of target platforms. OBS is a service that uses a build recipe and upstream sources (pintas tarball) to spit out binary packages for various different environments and formats. So one additional RPM file wouldn't do the trick here.
      - baldfat 10y ago
        I use OpenSUSE. The rpm's always work I might have to grab a dependency from somewhere or make a soft link, but 99% of the time they work. These are all the programs I use that I need to grab from RPM packages from their website RStudio (I use the preview version), Lightworks, Bittorrent Sync, and VS Code. Without RPM I would not get to use them period. In the old dasy of Linux their would be a lot of issues but presently RPM and Deb works like a charm fro my uses. I am hoping for appimage of flatpak to take over but for now RPM is my life blood to get things working. If it is a niche program that won't be on the repos or it is updated frequently RPM is a very viable system.
- fernandotakai 10y ago
  it's on the official repos https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=pinta https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=pint... it's also on pacman https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/pinta/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/pinta/
- anonbanker 10y ago
  You can treat a .deb package as if it's .xz, because it is. extract it, and make the manual configuration changes. If you'd like, repackage the files into an rpm. Back in 2006, when I switched to Ubuntu, I used to be the one complaining that developers pretended Redhat = Linux. If I had to choose, I'd pick .deb over .rpm any day. FWIW, Gentoo offers Pinta in the portage tree: * media-gfx/pinta Available versions: 1.6-r2 **9999 Homepage: http://pinta-project.com Description: Simple Painting for Gtk so you could even download the source and rebuild on your own, should you need rpm's that desperately.

baldfat 10y ago

WHY is it just a Ubuntu release and no RPM? I really HATE when developers go Ubuntu = Linux

darklajid 10y ago
I don't think that's their responsibility. Traditionally it's your distribution's job to create and provide packages. Arch Linux has one (I just installed it myself) and if we're talking rpm: Fedora has one as well, it seems [1]. So, what is upsetting you here, really? 1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/pinta%2A/ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/pinta%2A/
- baldfat 10y ago
  > Traditionally it's your distribution's job to create and provide packages That has not been true in my 15 years of Linux. Look at bitsync, rstudio, or other major programs. Arch Linux must build off of the source so that isn't a fair comparison you are on a totally different system (port). EDIT: Here is the one page of documentation to push out deba nd rpm on mono projects. http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/linux/ci-packages/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/lin... I have seen electron applications (pinta isn't built on electron but mono) and in the same way ONLY Ubuntu is advertised under Linux. The ability to automatically build Linux formats is built into the framework and still don't add RPM. Linux: AppImage, deb, rpm, freebsd, pacman, p5p, apk. Still other eclectron applications do the same thing and ONLY provide Ubuntu and not provide the Deb or RPM with source. Look at the download page it says Linux and directly under it has a Ubuntu Logo and a ppa link. When I down load any of my commercial or major software there is always a RPM and a DEB with a tar. Linux Support = RPM (The official Linux Foundation package) DEB and Source. I use OpenSUSE and they have awesome build service that allows people to build packages for SUSE but also RPM, Arch and anyone else you want to add. https://software.opensuse.org/package/pinta https://software.opensuse.org/package/pinta
  - darklajid 10y ago
    (For this discussion, Arch Linux is working exactly like Debian/Fedora/Suse etc. - installing binary packages.) In my time with Linux using anything other than your distributions package tools is an exception and extremely rare. You might do that for - say - bitsync, because it is proprietary. Your distribution cannot use the same 'grab sources, compile against our current libraries and package it up' process. pinta instead follows the normal process. You install it by using your package tools. Your distributions created binary packages for you already, hosted on their infrastructure. Heck, even on Ubuntu you'd probably apt-get install pinta and get a different (Ubuntu provided) package instead. Check http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ and see what they do if you want to download their software (they tell you that your distribution is in charge and even mention why that is usually a good idea). PPAs and OBS offer ways to build packages, yes. But again, that's the exception - most of your packages aren't coming from there.
    - baldfat 10y ago
      > (For this discussion, Arch Linux is working exactly like Debian/Fedora/Suse etc. - installing binary packages.) It isn't its a ports system it compiles off of source. The Arch Build System is a ports-like system for building and packaging software from source code. While pacman is the specialized Arch tool for binary package management (including packages built with the ABS), ABS is a collection of tools for compiling source into installable .pkg.tar.xz packages. I have built and maintained packages for RPM and for Arch. They are different and that is the reason why in electron export Arch has a different system then deb or rpm. > In my time with Linux using anything other than your distributions package tools is an exception and extremely rare. That is your experience. Most Ubuntu and Arch people use AUR or ppa all the time. If I want the preview of RStudio (Open sourced and in my official repos) I down load and use the RPM. I do this all the time. If I want anything that was recently released I need to use the RPM and not the packages provided by my disto including rolling releases. > Check http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ and see what they do if you want to download their software (they tell you that your distribution is in charge and even mention why that is usually a good idea). I don't find much with the Gimp project to show as a positive example for other applications to follow. > PPAs and OBS offer ways to build packages, yes. But again, that's the exception - most of your packages aren't coming from there. Once again that isn't my experience and that is open to other people's needs. If you use AUR you also are not getting your packages from your official repos. Build a AUR and you will see. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository AUR are awesome BECAUSE it works with the source files in a port system. The only difference between a AUR and a binary you get from pacman is that it was compiled for you to skip the step of downloading the source and compile like you do in AUR.
cosarara97 10y ago
It's packagers of RPM distros that should build RPMs. Upstream can't be expected to release packages for every distro (if any).
- baldfat 10y ago
  > Upstream can't be expected to release packages for every distro (if any). This isn't provide distro specific packages this is provide the one extra file over macOS and Windows. Also this is for the health of the Linux environment. That is why we have RPM and Deb they work for MANY distros and if your outside that then the source is there for aa build. One day appimage, flatpak or Snap will make this easier.
  - darklajid 10y ago
    No, RPM and Deb files don't work for many distributions. Yes, the formats are shared (say, RPM for Fedora, RedHat, Suse). But the resulting binaries aren't (usually, automatically - you might get lucky of course) compatible. The whole point of distributions is to build a system. Fedora and Suse are on different schedules, make different decisions about updates, might run different versions of the libraries your package (here: pinta) depends upon. Your RPM file often isn't even usable between different releases of the same distribution. So just adding a random RPM wouldn't make sense. You brought up OBS elsewhere: One of the major reasons that thing exists is so that you can build packages .. for a list of target platforms. OBS is a service that uses a build recipe and upstream sources (pintas tarball) to spit out binary packages for various different environments and formats. So one additional RPM file wouldn't do the trick here.
    - baldfat 10y ago
      I use OpenSUSE. The rpm's always work I might have to grab a dependency from somewhere or make a soft link, but 99% of the time they work. These are all the programs I use that I need to grab from RPM packages from their website RStudio (I use the preview version), Lightworks, Bittorrent Sync, and VS Code. Without RPM I would not get to use them period. In the old dasy of Linux their would be a lot of issues but presently RPM and Deb works like a charm fro my uses. I am hoping for appimage of flatpak to take over but for now RPM is my life blood to get things working. If it is a niche program that won't be on the repos or it is updated frequently RPM is a very viable system.
fernandotakai 10y ago
it's on the official repos https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=pinta https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=pint... it's also on pacman https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/pinta/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/pinta/
anonbanker 10y ago
You can treat a .deb package as if it's .xz, because it is. extract it, and make the manual configuration changes. If you'd like, repackage the files into an rpm. Back in 2006, when I switched to Ubuntu, I used to be the one complaining that developers pretended Redhat = Linux. If I had to choose, I'd pick .deb over .rpm any day. FWIW, Gentoo offers Pinta in the portage tree: * media-gfx/pinta Available versions: 1.6-r2 **9999 Homepage: http://pinta-project.com Description: Simple Painting for Gtk so you could even download the source and rebuild on your own, should you need rpm's that desperately.