On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:06:12 +0200, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Neumann wrote:
> > David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I will nominate you two (Dave and Bill) for maintainers of the meta
> > tarball.
> Perhaps we could get jamesh and jdub to add GIMP modules to
> jhbuild and garnome respectively, and be done with it? :)

I don't think that we need something like jhbuild or garnome for
a meta tarball.  From my point of view, the contents of this
tarball could look like this:

  ./gimp-2.0.4/...          (all files from the standard tarball)
  ./gimp-gap-2.0.2/...      (same for GAP)
  ./Gimp-2.0/...            (same for Perl)

The top-level configure script would basically contain something like
AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS(gimp-2.0.4...) and the Makefile.in would contain
SUBDIRS=gimp-2.0.4 etc.  Autoconf has been designed to support building
multiple packages from a top-level configure script, so we should take
advantage of it.

This meta tarball would not be very hard to create or maintain: it's
just that the version numbers would have to be increased from time to
time, whenever the contents of a new gimp/gimp-gap/gimp-perl/... tarball
are extracted and included in the meta tarball.  This would not require
much effort.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to