Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What is wrong about depending on GEGL and have people download and
> > compile it separately? GTK+ used to live in the GIMP source tree for
> > historical reasons only. I strongly doubt anyone would have wanted to
> > move it into the GIMP source tree if it was started as a separate
> > project. Why would you want to do this with GEGL now?
> What's wrong with having gegl sources to download with the latest
> release on the FTP server, the same way we used to have libaa, libmpg,
> libpng and all the other stuff we needed? Up until 1.2.x, we used to
> have gtk+ and glib sources with gimp sources. What was wrong with that?
Putting the tarballs somewhere close to the GIMP tarball on the FTP
server is of course reasonable. But unless I completely misunderstood
you earlier, you proposed to include gegl as a virtual CVS module and
to include it in the GIMP tarball. That's what we've been discussing
Gimp-developer mailing list