On 14 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:

> Please keep in mind that the main intention of our proposal has been
> to better distribute work between core and plug-in developers by
> seperating the source trees during development. Perhaps this scheme
> could be translated to distribution too, but it does not have to. If
> we decide to continue to distribute an awful lot of plug-ins with The
> GIMP as we do know, we can always put them all into one tarball at
> release time. Or several smaller tarballs, or a single for each
> plug-in ...

 What I could imagine is something like an Plugin installer plugin which
 is able to handle various different formats a plugin may appear as like
 as a source tarball (if the user has the tools to compile it of course)
 and as binary files (I can imagine a central building cluster for that and
 I even might be able to provide that) for several architectures and even
 optimized for different systems. So depending on the needs of the user
 the plugin can either be build on his system or come already done. Of course
 the distribution wouldn't be restricted to HTTP or FTP but also be available 
 for CDs.

 For some reason I'd really like this idea because I eases the GIMP
 quite a bit and we don't have to ship all the plugins with the GIMP.

 Hereby I'd also like to propose to change the naming of the GIMP
 libraries to a more obvious system. Instead of changing the libraries
 version with the GIMPs version I'd like to have it jsut changed when
 the binary compatibility can't be assured. This time one doesn't have
 to recompile the plugins every now and then. 

Servus,
       Daniel

Reply via email to