On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:53:59PM +0100, Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, but your definition is simply useless. Gimp itself (and any
other software package) does not work for many users, and calling every
software package "broken", while, according to your definition, would be
true, is simply not useful. It really makes no sense to define "broken"
as "every software package in existence". If people would use such a
useless definition they would have no way of talking about "really" broken
software, since the word "broken" would have no information content
> other than Linux (Solaris, IRIX, AIX, etc.) include a version of Perl
> while compiling or linking Perl modules because the compilers are
Well, this is obviously a configuration problem on the system in
question. Nobody would assume that it should work to link windows dlls
together with glibc and get something useful out of it, or configure
gimp with compiler switches the compiler can't understand. The fix is to
fix the configuration. Nothing is broken, it all works fine if the build
environment is non-broken.
> Another problem is for non-root users who install everything in a
> to the Perl directories. It is possible to avoid these problems by
> building and installing a second version of Perl or by installing the
It's also possible to avoid this problems by setting the prefix, nothing
complicated like you say is neccessary.
> >From that point of view, it would make sense to distribute the Perl
> plug-ins as a separate package.
It makes sense from a social standpoint, too. It might get rid of
occasions where some of the main gimp developers who obviously have a
problem with the language perl can spread FUD.
> 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.
Well, gtk-perl, while extremely useful, is not neccessary to build
gimp-perl. Many people use scripts to remotely control the gimp (and
gimp-perl is about the only secure way to do that, afaics), and a gui is
often not necessary for server operation.
> Those affected by these bugs are probably thinking that the Perl part
> is not actively maintained.
Well, I can't help that. The problem is that people who DO KNOW THIS
spread misinformation, which doesn't at all help these people. It's one
thing when people are misinformed because they don't get information,
it's a completely different thing if people get told that "gimp perl is
unmaintained and broken" by people whom they assume are authorities on the
subject, while the opposite is the case.
> 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.
Yes, gimp is simply broken, according to your definition. This of course
also included version 1.2.
I don't share your definition of broken, though, and I think gimp-1.2
is not really broken.
I also think your definition is not at all understood by most users, so
telling them "gimp is broken" is not helping them in any way, they will
just get confused.
This is *backwards*.
> > confusion and misinformation going on...
> I don't think that it is intentional.
Well, maybe not, but I am pretty sure that your claiming that everything
is broken is not helping users.
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
Gimp-developer mailing list