Manish Singh wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 06:15:17PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
The point is that as it is, gegl is not a standalone project.
But it *is* a standalone project. That's been the intent from the beginning.
I don't see how "incubation" helps it in any way. There are people who
have indicated wanting to use it for other projects besides GIMP already.

OK - fair enough. It's a standalone project. But we're going to use it, and need it, and from what I recall, calvin was looking for more GIMP input into what it should do. How do you propose we get that kind of communication happenning?

GTK+ was distributed as part of GIMP until people found out that "hey, this
is a useful general purpose toolkit". We already know that with GEGL. There
weren't any notable positive benefits with keeping GTK+ as part of the GIMP

Except that until people noticed that it was a useful general purpose toolkit, it kept getting worked on, with a particular application in mind... I think that being part of the GIMP was enormously beneficial to gtk+.

There isn't any point. The problem with dependencies most people have is
not downloading and installing tarballs, but rather the mess that is
Freetype library incompatibilites and by extension any of the things
that directly depend on it.

GEGL doesn't depend on any external library GIMP doesn't already need.

I'm afraid I didn't follow the logic of this... how is this a counter-argument to having gegl and gimp downloads in the same directory?

Note, I'm no longer advocating shipping gegl as part of the GIMP sources - although I see no reason not to do that personally, I can see that most people are against it and don't consider it the thing to do (that said, only 3 people have replied with a preference).


Dave Neary

_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to