On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 10:08:29PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 03:01:04PM +0000, Seth Golub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > install that left out (and didn't bother to compile) most of the
> > plugins.  Given enough disk space, sure, I'll install whirlpinch,
> > but 55MB is more than I can afford on my school account.
> Actually, the _whole_ gimp installation on an average linux x86
> machine (MINE) takes less than 13MB.

My recent CVS GIMP build is almost 17 megs.
du -ksc `find /usr/local -name *gimp*` gives
me a total of 17296.

That's compiled with pgcc 2.95.3, CFLAGS='-s -O6 -march=pentium',
and --disable-static.

In any case it's much smaller than 55MB!

> (Note that this is no reason not to provide a minimal install, and
> something like that is already planned, but 55MB is, I think, a bit
> oversized).

It may be that Seth is compiling with tons of debugging information in
there, is not stripping his binaries, and is not using

It may also be that he's on a platform without shared libraries :)

> > Of course the hard part is deciding what should go in it.  I could see
> It would be cool to have some configurator for this.

Yes, I think what was mentioned before was a CPAN-style repository of
plugins so that you could retrieve and install plug-ins easily.  Of
course since it's the GIMP we'd have to have a pretty GTK+ front-end
and even better all uninstalled plug-ins could be listed in a menu in
the GIMP and as soon as you want to use one it will be automagically
compiled and installed.

Something for GIMP 3.0 perhaps.


--    Tom Rathborne    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--                     http://www.aceldama.com/~tomr/
--    "I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my life-style."

Reply via email to