David Neary wrote:
I think there are a few reasons for this. The biggest of them is
that setting up a gimp 1.3 compile environment [..]
> automake, autoconf, libtool, gettext, intltool [..]
> (png, jpeg, etc) [..] gtk+ with pangoft2, freetype2, fontconfig
[..]
At least, that's my theory :)
It's a good theory, being the mysterious reason why
my own patches are made against 1.2.x and then blindly
forward-ported to 1.3.x (it's why my commits are usually
coupled with a bugzilla comment like 'could someone please
check that CVS HEAD now actually compiles' :) )
But I was hoping that the reasons for other developers
diffing against 1.2.x are even more mundane and fixable,
since everyone except me lives in a fairytale world
of supported rpms and debs and magical stuff like that.
Identifying the cause of this weakness would help to smooth
the bumps in accepting (very welcome) external contributions.
I agree. I think we need to do a little more to get developpment
gimps built by more people. Exactly what, I don't know. Wait for
GNOME2 to take over the world, perhaps?
If the hegemonising swarm of sub-mediocrity that is GNOME ever
succeeds in taking over the world, then I'm going to move up
to the mountains and become a hermit or a kung-fu monk or a
hermit kung-fu monk.
--Adam
--
Adam D. Moss . ,,^^ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.foxbox.org/ co:3
That gum you like is going to come back in style.
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
