On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:02:48 +0100, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:04:51PM +0100, RaphaŽl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - Gimp-Perl is broken and is not maintained
> Well, I don't know of anything like "gimp-perl is broken". I think that
> build problems that are due to people using the wrong compiler (like on
> irix), or problems with gtk-perl (that I am still not aware of) do not
> warrant such wording as "gimp-perl is broken".

Even if the problems were only due to the build/install process, I
think that it would be appropriate to say that "gimp-perl is broken".
The result is that it is not possible for some users to use gimp-perl.
And although gimp-perl works for most people in the 1.2.x releases,
this is not the case for GIMP 1.3.x, in which gimp-perl is really
"broken".  I am not blaming you for that, but the current version is
simply not working.

Some of the build or installation problems are not specific to
gimp-perl and are shared by all programs that have to install Perl
modules.  One example that comes to my mind is that most UNIX systems
other than Linux (Solaris, IRIX, AIX, etc.) include a version of Perl
with the OS (pre-installed or available as an optional package).  This
version is compiled with the vendor's compiler, which is not installed
by default.  Those who do not want to pay extra for the vendor's
compiler install some version of gcc.  But then this causes problems
while compiling or linking Perl modules because the compilers are
different.  Another problem is for non-root users who install
everything in a non-standard directory but still have problems with
the Perl modules that cannot be installed because the user does not
have write access to the Perl directories.  It is possible to avoid
these problems by building and installing a second version of Perl or
by installing the Gimp-Perl files in a private directory and playing
with @INC, but this is not trivial.

>From that point of view, it would make sense to distribute the Perl
plug-ins as a separate package.  Regardless of its merits, this part
of the GIMP has typically caused more installation problems than the
other parts.  Distributing it separately will ensure that more people
can easily get a basic GIMP installation working.

Now, regarding the problems with Gtk-Perl, this is something that I
experienced: I tried to fetch it from CPAN and build it on Solaris
2.6, using Perl 5.8.0.  I got many errors while compiling and linking.
In the end, it compiled but I got random crashes in any script that
was using the Gtk module.  I spent a few hours trying to fix that, but
in the end I gave up.  Also, the current version of Gtk-Perl has lots
of optional dependencies on various GNOME components, libxml and other
things.  It also depends on XML::Writer and XML::Parser.  Since this
system did not have any of these, I had to supply a nice list of
options (the order of some of them is significant):
o conf makepl_arg "--without-gtkhtml --without-gtkglarea
  --without-gdkimlib --without-gtkxmhtml --without-gnome
  --without-gnomeprint --without-applets"
So building Gtk-Perl is not very easy.  It works on Linux, though
(with the old GTK+ 1.2.10).

> Also, gimp-perl not being maintained is news to me. Who claims this?? I
> was under the impression that I was the maintainer, and I certainly still
> maintain it. Where do you have this "gimp-perl is not maintained"? Or has
> the maintainer silently changed without the maintainer knowing it?

Of course, you are still the maintainer.  But in practice, the Perl
part in GIMP 1.3 is not actively maintained.  Currently, it just does
not work with the current versions of libgimp, GTK+ 2.x, etc.  Also, I
just saw Sven's message listing some of the bugs that are still open.
Those affected by these bugs are probably thinking that the Perl part
is not actively maintained.  This happens to other parts of the GIMP
as well: there are several long-standing bugs in some plug-ins or
parts of the core.  Even if they have an official maintainer, there is
not much happening in some areas.

> I really wonder what is going on here, but there is a great deal of
> confusion and misinformation going on...

I don't think that it is intentional.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to