On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 09:35:09AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> 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?

Not sure. Something to think about more post-2.0.
> >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
> >tree.
> 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+.

The beneficial part was having GIMP use GTK+. Period. Having it part of the
actual source tree didn't really contribute to that benefit much at all,
since it would've gotten worked on regardless.

In fact, it was a minor hindrance, since GIMP specific stuff like GtkGamma
got stuck in the general purpose library, and now the GTK+ folk have to
maintain it when it doesn't actually belong.

> >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).

You didn't propose having gegl and gimp downloads in the same directory
till today. So I don't follow the logic. ;)

I don't really mind symlinking the gegl sources into the gimp ftp dir, but
that's a fairly minor thing. Most people follow webpage links rather than
poking through an ftp site these days, and the download webpage should of
course link to gegl.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to