(Cc:d to gimp-developer and gimpwin-dev)

Dominik Stadler writes:
 > As far as I can see the file libgimp/Makefile.in 
 > contains filenames starting with "i:/target" and "g:/mingw.new/" 

Ouch. Where the heck did those come from, I wonder. Makefile.in files
aren't supposed to contain any host dependencies. Sigh, I'll have to
do the "make distdir" once more and see if I can figure out what goes

Anyway, if you have a working automake-1.4 installation you can
regenerate the Makefile.in files by running "automake-1.4
libgimp/Makefile" in the top-level directory.

Packaging source distributions is a pain in the rear for me... There
are a couple of problems that I assume don't happen on Unix:

- For GLib and GTK+, it never works in the "docs" subdir, as that
would require gtk-doc, texi2html or something which I don't have. I
usually resolve this by removing "docs" from the top-level Makefile,
and then copy the docs subdir from an official distribution into my
source package.

- In GIMP it never works for the "intl" subdir, as that mess is
differently handled when using GLib-2.x anyway, and no "intl" subdir
should be there at all, AFAIK. (AM_GLIB_GNU_GETTEXT vs. AM_GNU_GETTEXT
in configure.in). I usually resolv this by just removing "intl" from
the top-level Makefile.

- Sometimes there are some problems in the "po" subdir also. I don't
remember exactly, but one thing is that "make distdir" for some reason
insists on creating *.gmo files, even if a normal "make" in the po
subdirs creates *.mo files? But, the official source tarballs contain
*.gmo files, too, so I guess this is OK.

In case somebody wonders why I bother at all doing own snapshot
source distributions, it's because of the (L)GPL requirements. I don't
want anybody to accuse me of not following those. Because of personal
resource issues or random events I am usually not able to synchronize
my binary builds with official source release schedules, I have to
distribute source code corresponding to the binary builds I
distribute. For instance, GLib and GTK+ 2.2.0 were released just
before Xmas, but I didn't have time to do some essential bugfixes
until during Xmas vacation.

Of course, an alternative could be to not distribute any binary
packages at all, just commit stuff to CVS and let somebody else handle
the Windows binary (and source) release packaging and
distribution... After all, that's how it mostly works on Unix. Any


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to