Change Details

Reason: librsvg 2.40-bugs in phabricator are currently reported mostly as upstream, but the C-version of librsvg was deprecated in 2017 ([last release 2017](https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2017-December/msg00072.html), [deapreciated 2017](https://people.gnome.org/~federico/blog/librsvg-24020-is-released.html), [librsvg-developer declares do not use the C-version of librsvg ](https://people.gnome.org/~federico/blog/do-not-use-librsvg-2.40.x.html) ), and is forever suspended, and bug-reports are not closed as [depreciated](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/654#note_972787). Even @Aklapper [wrote](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/654#note_972067) in an bug-report: "Please note that 2.40.x is an ancient, unsupported version." You "cannot" report - a open-office-bug in libre-office - a sodipodi-bug in inkscape - a owncloud-bug in nextcloud - a C-only-librsvg 2.40-bug in Rust-only-librsvg 2.50 Yes C-only-librsvg 2.40 and Rust-only-librsvg 2.50 have the name and the same place to report bugs, so it is confusing, but it is imho similar to a fork of a project. You can report problems of the fork in the fork, but not of software already fixed in the fork. **But since librsvg-2.40-bugs won't get fixed anymore, it is the responsibilty of the user (WMF and not librsvg) to fix bug or not, which makes librsvg-2.40 as a part of Wikimedia and not any more an upstream-bug.** I would not actively remove upstream in such tasks, but we might should not add upstream any more to librsvg-2.40-bugs. The reason why I bring it up on phabricator is because of categorizing tasks in [[ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/wikimedia-svg-rendering/ | wikimedia-svg-rendering ]], as suggested in T282740. I'm not a developer so I maybe missed something and I don't know the meaning of upstream that well.

Reason: librsvg 2.40-bugs in phabricator are currently reported mostly as upstream, but the C-version of librsvg was depreciated in 2017 ([last release 2017](https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2017-December/msg00072.html), [deapreciated 2017](https://people.gnome.org/~federico/blog/librsvg-24020-is-released.html), [librsvg-developer declares do not use the C-version of librsvg ](https://people.gnome.org/~federico/blog/do-not-use-librsvg-2.40.x.html) ), and is forever suspended, and bug-reports are not closed as [depreciated](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/654#note_972787). Even @Aklapper [wrote](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/654#note_972067) in an bug-report: "Please note that 2.40.x is an ancient, unsupported version." You "cannot" report - a open-office-bug in libre-office - a sodipodi-bug in inkscape - a owncloud-bug in nextcloud - a C-only-librsvg 2.40-bug in Rust-only-librsvg 2.50 Yes C-only-librsvg 2.40 and Rust-only-librsvg 2.50 have the name and the same place to report bugs, so it is confusing, but it is imho similar to a fork of a project. You can report problems of the fork in the fork, but not of software already fixed in the fork. But since librsvg-2.40-bugs won't get fixed anymore, it is the responsibilty of the user (WMF and not librsvg) to fix bug or not, which makes librsvg-2.40 as a part of Wikimedia and not any more an upstream-bug. I would not actively remove upstream in such tasks, but we might should not add upstream any more to librsvg-2.40-bugs. The reason why I bring it up on phabricator is because of categorizing tasks in [[ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/wikimedia-svg-rendering/ | wikimedia-svg-rendering ]], as suggested in T282740. I'm not a developer so I maybe missed something and I don't know the meaning of upstream that well.

Reason: librsvg 2.40-bugs in phabricator are currently reported mostly as upstream, but the C-version of librsvg was depreciated in 2017 ([last release 2017](https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2017-December/msg00072.html), [deapreciated 2017](https://people.gnome.org/~federico/blog/librsvg-24020-is-released.html), [librsvg-developer declares do not use the C-version of librsvg ](https://people.gnome.org/~federico/blog/do-not-use-librsvg-2.40.x.html) ), and is forever suspended, and bug-reports are not closed as [depreciated](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/654#note_972787). Even @Aklapper [wrote](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/librsvg/-/issues/654#note_972067) in an bug-report: "Please note that 2.40.x is an ancient, unsupported version." You "cannot" report - a open-office-bug in libre-office - a sodipodi-bug in inkscape - a owncloud-bug in nextcloud - a C-only-librsvg 2.40-bug in Rust-only-librsvg 2.50 Yes C-only-librsvg 2.40 and Rust-only-librsvg 2.50 have the name and the same place to report bugs, so it is confusing, but it is imho similar to a fork of a project. You can report problems of the fork in the fork, but not of software already fixed in the fork. **But since librsvg-2.40-bugs won't get fixed anymore, it is the responsibilty of the user (WMF and not librsvg) to fix bug or not, which makes librsvg-2.40 as a part of Wikimedia and not any more an upstream-bug.** I would not actively remove upstream in such tasks, but we might should not add upstream any more to librsvg-2.40-bugs. The reason why I bring it up on phabricator is because of categorizing tasks in [[ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/wikimedia-svg-rendering/ | wikimedia-svg-rendering ]], as suggested in T282740. I'm not a developer so I maybe missed something and I don't know the meaning of upstream that well.