Frogr 0.6 released

After some changes here and there frogr 0.6 is finally out.

Frogr 0.6 running in GNOME 3

Besides the usual bugfixing work, the main new features on this release are:

  • Integration with the GNOME general proxy settings (optional).
  • Open pictures in the default image viewer  from the details dialog and the main view.
  • Allow users to specify the license to be set for the pictures.
  • A new User Manual, under “Help > Contents”.
  • Some UI improvements.

As usual, you can get frogr through different ways: you can grab the source code from its git repository or via the xz and bzip2 tarballs, specific packages for Fedora or for Ubuntu (ranging from Karmic to Oneiric) and even a version for MacOSX, if you dare to use it.

By the way, at the moment frogr is already being packaged in some distros (see this) and others might follow, so perhaps it could be that you already were able to install it by just using your favorite package manager with the standard repos. Otherwise, it might be just a matter of time, I guess…

For more information about the project and also how to contribute, check out its web site.

Last, but not least, I’d like to make an special mention here to the awesome Quinn Dombrowski, who very well could be the “most passionate frogr user I’ve ever known” and who was kind enough to design, handcraft and send -from Chicago to Spain- a stuffed frogr mascot plus a beautiful vest for my son (which design comes also with its own incredible story), as a sign of gratitude for writing this tiny app. I’m still shocked about it, see what I’m talking about:

Frogr mascot Onfim vest

If you want to see more pictures you can check my set in flickr, although I warn you these two ones taken by the artist are way better than mine :-)

Seriously Quinn… and yet once again: Thank you!

8 thoughts on “Frogr 0.6 released

  1. I always find it kind of emarrasing when some free software site, like frogrs, claim it’s licensed under “GNU Public License”. It proves that people didn’t even read the headline of the license they used for their software when they can’t even get the name right (and on a legal matter I wonder if this means the licensing terms are unknown, since there’s no GNU Public License).

  2. @noname: It was a typo and now it’s fixed, so thank you for pointing it out. Worse of all, it looks like I also screw it up in the announcement mails to the gnome.org mailing lists (damm c&p!), so I will try not to commit the same mistake again in the future.

    Still, I don’t think the “way” you pointed it out was a good one, honestly, it sounds more like an attack than like “willing to help”.

    It was a typo, period, and now it’s fixed. If you took your time to check all the places in frogr’s git repository where the GPL is mentioned, there is NOT a single place where the license is badly named (and if there was, it wouldn’t be the end of the world either), which proves that it was a typo, a “human” mistake, like all those we all (and I bet that you too) make every now and then.

    So don’t worry, the license terms of frogr are not unknown, as they are clearly stated along with a big COPYING file in the tarball. And that’s what matters at the end, not the text line that you paste in a mail or in a wiki, which is more error-prone IMHO.

    So, again thank you for pointing it out (I’m the first one who doesn’t like this kind of mistakes at all), but next time I’d ask you for being a little bit more human and less aggressive on your comments.

    Thanks

  3. I am a Fedora contributor and could package it up for Fedora. Would be helpful if you publish the srpm, specifically the spec file. I could use that as a starting point

  4. @Rahul: thanks a lot for your interest on packaging frogr for Fedora. I’m also a Fedora user and would also love as well to see it packaged soon.

    Actually, the work to package it has been already started, so if you want to help with that feel free to visit RH bug 708765 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765), which is were this is being tracked down at the moment.

    Thanks!

    PS: See the last comment (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765#c61) where all the data needed, I hope, like the .spec file are referenced by links

  5. Hi again!

    Sorry if you didn’t like what I wrote. It was not meant to be hurtful or even specifically aimed at anyone. It’s just such a common “typo” that I wonder if there are more websites that gets the name right then wrong (with that particular version of wrong, not just a random error) and the “phenomena” itself gets me a bit frustrated…. So it was no more then an outloud *sigh* from me…. I’ll try to keep it down in the future to not disturb anyone. ;)
    Great to see you’ve fixed it but now there are just millions of more places left out there to fix. I wonder if it’s worth to even sigh about it. :P

    Have a great day!

  6. @noname: thanks for your second comment, it was indeed clarifying and as such I appreciate it, specially because (as I said) I’m the kind of person who does not like at all those kind of mistakes, even if my human and sometimes absent minded nature makes me commit them all the time…

    Anyway, no problem from my side, and as I said thank you for pointing it out, since now it’s fixed in the website and I have already written down a note in my particular “frogr releasing checklist” not to forget about the announcement mail next time I release a new version.

  7. Yeah. I will take a look at the review request to try and push this forward. Thanks

  8. Pingback: Smile » Blog Archive » Frogr 0.6.1 (bugfixing) release