[crossfire] Arch repository: layered art files?

[David Delbecq]

En l'instant précis du 14/12/07 06:20, Mark Wedel s'exprimait en ces
termes:
> Fair enough.  But suppose someone checks something in using adobe photoshop 
> format, and a month later I want to change the image, but don't have photoshop.
>
>   Is it OK then for me to remove the original (source) photoshop image and just 
> have a PNG?  Even if the original author is still around, maybe he doesn't have 
> time to make the change in the near future.
>   
Well, you can't open the photoshop file, you remake a file using,
example, gimp and commit png, gimp, remove photoshop.
The source is now gimp. If the final file is similar to original one and
original author wants to restart from his photoshop file, fair engouh.
He retrieve it from the svn history, manipulate it and commit this: new
png, removed gimp, new photoshop. As i said, to the opposite of cvs, svn
does handle properly deletions. Original file is still available in history.
>   And gimp's .xcf files are another odd case here.  Pretty much every linux 
> distro will have gimp, but folks using windows or mac would need to download it. 
>   Should it be considered proper that the mac/windows person download gimp and 
> update the .xcf file, or is it ok for them to just write out a png and remove 
> the .xcf source?
>   
It's probably less work for them to download the xcf / edit / save as
png then open png in photoshop, extract elements, remakes some layers,
save both.
>   Disagree - it costs something here.  I'm not really concerned about the space 
> - that is trivial.  But more the case of whenever I want to modify an png file, 
> these are potential steps:
>
> 1) Check to see if the is a 'source' version of that file in the other repository.
> 2) If so, is it a format I can currently read & write?
> 3) If not, is it in a format I can easily get a program that can read/write it 
> (or maybe we don't care about this, depending on comment above)
> 4) If can't get software & can't write it, now need to remove it from repository
>
>   
As usage go on, maybe we will discover we need to regulate things a bit
more. Let's get a free for all for now and see what's popular.
>>>   As a compromise, I'd suggest that in principal, any format may be allowed, but 
>>> has to be approved/discussed on a case by case basis.  For fairly popular 
>>> formats or programs, that should pretty much be a rubber stamp.  But if someone 
>>> pops up and wants to add a format no one has ever heard of, answer is probably no.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Do we have yet a formal general approval process? If yes am ok with it,
>> if no, that would just mean the commiter will have final word.
>>     
>
>   I'd think in most cases, it would be fairly clear cut.  Everyone readily 
> agreed to gimp .xcf
>   
Ok, which version of gimp? That may not matter for xcf, but am pretty
sure for adobe, for example we must settle the format (adobe) *and* the
version :/
I think the main question is "do we comply to GPL to the point we must
give *all* sources, including those of our png? If yes, then if someone
modify something with an obscure program, he must commit the source too :/