On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 04:48 +0100, Stephan Hegel wrote:

> You are right: you _should_ read them. But reality is that only a few people 
> do
> this. And finally we end up with threads like this where a program even does 
> not
> start out of the box 'cause it's grabbing a wrong library.
> As I said the wrapper script is not only a problem of the development version,
> you need this wrapper also with the stable version of The Gimp when installing
> it in a non-standard location. Take an average Windows user: usually he runs 
> an
> install.exe, can store the application at any place on his harddisks and at 
> the
> end of this procedure the program often is even launched ... Done.
> Sorry, but I stick with my opinion that the problem is caused by the 
> installation
> procedure of The Gimp. It should install the wrapper by itself. And it could 
> be
> done easily: create a wrapper template, during make or make install replace 
> the
> path with the --prefix passed from configure, install it and print a message
> where the wrapper is so that the user know what to invoke.

You are making a wrong assumption here about the target audience of a
source release. Users are not the target audience. Users should grab a
pre-compiled binary from their distributor or from someone who knows
what he's doing and provides one for them.

The target audience of a source code release are people who are
experienced in building software from source. They do appreciate the
standard autoconf/automake based build and install procedures that GIMP
provides. They would hate us if we deviated from this standard build
process and started to install wrapper scripts.


Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to