Sven Neumann wrote:

> Hi,
> "Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So I would split the system more at source level, so you get x groups
> > and build & install them (or make distro pkgs then install) following
> > an order, like you can do with GNOME, ie. ATM I already use that (with
> > x=2): gimp and gimp-data-extras.
> actually this is my opinion too. I'm not convinced that we should try
> to deal with binary packages.

If by "deal with binary packages," mean make binary packages, I
don't think we have the resources. Of course, we can't be indifferent
to package makers of the distribution companies at the "principle and
practices" level, since the workings of the plug-in manager will have
an influence on how to make packages.

> IMHO the best solution will be to have a bunch of standalone source
> packages that follow some well-defined rules. One rule should be that
> there needs to be a file that describes the package and all its
> components that can be used by the plug-in manager and by the next
> generation plug-in registry.

I also think this general approach is correct, but the design of a package
manager would take a great deal of care (albeit, very useful).
This particular rule readily turns into a protocol  encoding a plug-ins' dependencies
on other resources, (other plug-ins, modules, libraries, interpreters),
its preferences in a menuing system, version level requirements, etc.

> For the moment we want to keep all plug-ins in the core package until
> we have ported Gimp to Glib/GTK+-2.0. This is because we think that
> a lot plug-ins will be ported very easily and having them all in one
> place might ease this task.

This would also be an ideal pipeline to inventory existing plug-ins
with an eye toward how well they can be adapted to a package manager,
what constraints they would place on the design of a package manager,
establishing weak/strong dependencies among plug-ins, and deciding
about functional groupings (i.e., logical packaging).

> Once the port is done (and we are going to
> start it very soon now), we should think about moving most of the
> plug-ins out of the core CVS module. Hopefully we have made up our mind
> on the new plug-in system until then.

I think the Gimp could also use a "Plugin Maintainer" on par with the
"Core Maintainer" to midwife this effort.

Be good, be well


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to