Adam D. Moss wrote:
> David Neary wrote:
> >I think there are a few reasons for this. The biggest of them is
> >that setting up a gimp 1.3 compile environment [..]
> > utomake, autoconf, libtool, gettext, intltool [..]
> > png, jpeg, etc) [..] gtk+ with pangoft2, freetype2, fontconfig
> [..]
> >At least, that's my theory :)
> It's a good theory, being the mysterious reason why
> my own patches are made against 1.2.x and then blindly
> forward-ported to 1.3.x (it's why my commits are usually
> coupled with a bugzilla comment like 'could someone please
> check that CVS HEAD now actually compiles' :) )
> But I was hoping that the reasons for other developers
> diffing against 1.2.x are even more mundane and fixable,
> since everyone except me lives in a fairytale world
> of supported rpms and debs and magical stuff like that.

Being brutally brunt, if a maintainer of several gimp plug-ins
and a former core developper can't manage to keep an up-to-date
build of CVS going, what chances are there for mere mortals who
are just shopping around for a worthwhile cause?

> If the hegemonising swarm of sub-mediocrity that is GNOME ever
> succeeds in taking over the world, then I'm going to move up
> to the mountains and become a hermit or a kung-fu monk or a
> hermit kung-fu monk.

You may leave when you can grab the pebble from my hand,


       David Neary,
       Lyon, France
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to