David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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.

I don't see what's wrong with needing a jhbuild type of script to ease
compilation (not that I have ever felt the need to use jhbuild). GIMP
is not a desktop application. It is (or should become if it isn't yet)
an image manipulation suite. We have several sets of developers
already and I hope that sooner or later it will be several dozens of
them. If you are lacking this vision, you are effectively stalling
GIMP development. We cannot continue to grow forever, splitting things
into smaller packages is the only way GIMP can grow into something
really large.

Dave, it was you who only yesterday complained about the time that it
takes to build GIMP. Now imagine how much time it would take if GAP
and gimp-perl were still in there. We are already way beyond the point
where the GIMP tarball is handable. It takes hours to run make
distcheck in this beast. It takes hours to check it out of CVS and
build it. It takes hours to do a release, most of this due to the huge
size of the tarball and the shear amount of files that need to be
tagged and committed.

Face it, GIMP is large. It doesn't fit into a single tarball. Of
course, as I said in another mail, such a tarball could be build but
it would just be a collection of smaller tarballs and a jhbuild type
of script.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to