William Skaggs wrote:
> Dave Neary wrote:
> > 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.
This is what I understand Sven wants, eventually. As I understand
it, if you're building from source, you're a developer.
Otherwise, get the binaries, which will have everything packaged
in. If I misunderstand Sven's point of view, I'm sure that he'll
If that's the case, we're working towards needing a jhbuild or a
garnome for the GIMP, which just doesn't seem right - we're a
desktop application, not a suite of developer libraries and
desktop applications. We have one set of developers, not several
If everything ended up in one tarball, with a single-step build,
that would be grand. But I don't believe that's the intention,
given the precedents of GAP and gimp-perl.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gimp-developer mailing list