Hello Lorenz,
for me the advantages of fink are:
- easy installation and update of packages
- easy deinstallation of packages
- proper handling of dependencies
- availability of many (command line) Unix tools (I
love to use them)
The reasons for using Fink above apply also for Gimp.
My point was not to bring Gimp2 into Fink, Gimp2 is
already part of Fink, but as it is unstable it is
available only for Developers.
I installed Gimp2 from the official web site about a
year ago and deinstalled Fink's gimp1, but what now?
Every time a new version is out, I have to update it
manually! What a work. For whom is an unstable Gimp2
in Fink useful?
My point is: Please make unstable packages generally
available for testers and users in binary form.
Maybe another better example which really hurts me:
XXDiff.
When I bought my iBook in 2003 I installed OS X 10.2
and I also installed the Developer Tools and I
compiled and used XXDiff. Compiling it was no problem
at all. I used XXDiff because it is much faster than
FileMerge when it comes to long files (hard disc
listings in my case).
When I installed 10.3 I decided not to install
Developer tools anymore, because it just takes up a
lot of space on the hard disc and I am not doing any
active Development nowadays (no time, my life is
already too hectic nowadays). Since this time I am
waiting for **somebody** to provide a compiled binary
version of XXDiff suitable for 10.3! There is one
problem why I can not use my old compilation: XXDiff
depends on Qt, the Qt available within 10.3-Fink is
not compatible with my old binary of XXDiff that used
the Qt within 10.2-Fink.
I made some efforts to get XXDiff within Fink and it
is there since 2 years. I am sure it works fine, I
just can not try it, because it is still unstable!!
It really hurts.
Martin
--- LHerm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hello Martin
>
> Sorry to be so late to this. Life is fairly hectic
> here right now.
>
> Could you explain why the Fink project needs to do
> its' own Gimp2
> binary? How would a Fink binary be different from
> the one already
> available from the Gimp site? What would be the
> advantage to having
> this duplication?
>
> Lorenz
>
>
>
> On 05 Feb, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Martin Glaser wrote:
>
> > FINK supplies very seldom a binary distribution
> for packages that are
> > only
> > available in the unstable tree. I think that this
> is the wrong
> > approach, because
> > people like me who do not install the Developer
> Tools have no chance
> > to test new
> > packages. Having not enough test results new
> packages never get from
> > the
> > unstable to the stable tree.
> >
> > An Example: Gimp2 is now out for a long time.
> Within FINK it still is
> > in the
> > unstable tree. Why? I bet that not enough testers
> have given a
> > positive test
> > result to the FINK system. But who uses/tests a
> program like Gimp?
> > Mostly not
> > developers I would say.
> >
> > So please: reconsider regular supply of unstable
> packages in the binary
> > distribution.
> >
> > Martin Glaser
>
>
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Fink-users mailing list
Fink-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
