Sven Neumann wrote:
> I am not going to allow the source tree
> to be clobbered with more stuff simply because we are too lazy to add
> some simple notes to our web-site and FTP server. In the long run we
> will want to split GIMP into even more packages.
Dave Neary wrote:
> On another note, I'm not sure this is a desirable goal. splitting
> stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
> goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no
> image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum number of brushes,
> patterns and gradients doesn't seem to be the direction that
> people want to see the GIMP taking, from what I can tell.
I think I agree with Dave here. Instead of a simple "download;
untar; configure; make; make install", it wouldn't be an improvement
to make people go through that multiple times, making sure to do
it in the right order and ldconfig after each step, matching all
the versions and configurations properly. And that's just for Linux.
Now, it's possible that I am misunderstanding what Sven means. As long as
the *tarballs* include everything necessary and can be built in a simple
way, then there is no obvious reason why everything needs to be together
in a single CVS archive. But multiple tarballs would be a regression,
______________ ______________ ______________ ______________
Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu
Gimp-developer mailing list