David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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
> correct me.
> 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
> dozens.
> 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.

Creating such a meta tarball would be trivial and could of course be
done. I doubt however that users would want to use such a beast. You
wouldn't want to download a 50MB tarball everytime some new brushes
are being added or a bug-fix release of the core shows up. Of course
for the initial installation, if people really want to build from
source, they would probably use the meta tarball.

I will nominate you two (Dave and Bill) for maintainers of the meta

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to