On 2002-06-06 at 2209.02 -0700, Philip Brown typed this mail:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 08:02:35AM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> You did not mention, however, why pkgconfig was suddenly added to
> gimp1.3.7, when it was not neccessary for gimp1.2.x
probably you should stick with the stable branch.  i don't know why it
hasn't been suggested before.

> really?
> $ ls -l gimp-1.*/configure
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 phil other 392867 Feb 9 22:21 gimp-1.2.3/configure*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 phil other 598688 May 30 06:34 gimp-1.3.7/configure*
here is another example of why the stable branch is more suited to you
and your computer.

> To me, longer usually == "more complex".
also, this screams "stable packages only".  sticking with the stable
gimp is prolly just the ticket.

> Okay, thats not entirely fair, since there's more stuff in 1.3.7.
> And maybe pkgconfig helps lots of output, but simplifies the INPUT stuff.
> $ ls -l gimp-1.*/configure.in
> -rw-r--r-- 1 phil other 28462 Feb 3 19:23 gimp-1.2.3/configure.in
> -rw-r--r-- 1 phil other 33696 May 30 06:28 gimp-1.3.7/configure.in
yep. stick with the stable gimp.  1.2 is a fine gimp.  

> Hmm. no, dont see any significant savings there either :-)
> So far, I just see extra hassle, to what is already a big hassle tracking
> down umpteen different new packages if you're not running linux or
> something that has them already.
you make the best arguement for yourself not delving into development.
maybe you should take this to the user list.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to