Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another reason may be that it is difficult to build the development
> version because it depends on released versions of some libraries that
> are not included yet in the major GNU/Linux distributions (e.g., GTK+
> version 2.2.2).
both debian unstable, mandrake and redhat provides gtk+2.x for quite a
there's no problem in providing both gtk+-1.2.x and gtk+-2.x in a
> Also, the number of dependencies for GIMP 1.3.x is much higher than
> the number of dependencies for GIMP 1.2.x, so it is more difficult
> to have a working build environment for the 1.3.x version.
this is a valid point for:
- users of very old distributions
- non developer users (that is most end users)
- windows users (for which getting both a working development suit and
enough knowledge to build something with required dependancies is
probably not easy)
> Do we need binary distributions?
> There was a discussion about binary distributions. This may help
> people to try some versions of the GIMP (especially the development
> versions) without having to compile everything. However,
> maintaining binaries is a lot of work, even if we only maintain
> binaries supplied by others. In addition, this would bring some
> additional responsabilities that we do not want to have. For these
> reasons, it was decided that www.gimp.org would not host any
> binaries but would link to the pages of those who are providing
> binaries for various platforms.
yes development and packaging (well binary tarball is some kind of
packaging) are two different tasks.
you can either:
- leave it to distributions (after all gimp-1.3 is already provided in
mandrake contribs and in debian unstable)
- leave it to a nightly build system (see mozilla)
- leave it to another specialized team (aka you need one people that
sometimes build windows binaries and someone who sometimes build
static gimp for linux)
> Is Bugzilla too hard to use for new users?
> It was suggested to make it easier for users to submit bug reports,
> for example by having an e-mail address to which bug reports can be
> sent without having to register to Bugzilla (we already have such an
> address, although it is not widely known). This proposal was rejected
> because most of the bug reports (especially from new users) are
> incomplete and require additional information. If the user does not
> have a Bugzilla account, it is not possible to rely on the automatic
> notification system to send messages to the user when a comment is
> added to their bug report or when the status of their bug report
even if bug reporting by mail may not look suitable, being able to
anwser bugzilla by mail is a must.
it saves quite a lot of time and is often see as more easy to use by
developers (at least here at mdk).
there're several extensions that do this (see freshmeat.net or
soft/bugs module in mandrake cvs).
Gimp-developer mailing list