On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:55:20AM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
>> >> Personally, I don't see a reason why every person interested in using
>> >> GIMP to be forced to install python. I suggested a few days ago on
>> >> the list that python should be made to be a flavor for those who want
>> >> to enable it with GIMP.
>> >
>> > We've talked about this here in budapest. It will not happen, gimp
>> > will have python enabled. Adding a flavor for saving just a few
>> > megabytes of disk space is overkill.
>>
>> Lovely.
>
> Just to get this right: we don't dislike a no-python flavor because
> we're assholes. We dislike it in this case because gimp takes pretty
> much time to build and pulls in python (at runtime) regardless of
> the flavor; adding a flavor means that a package build takes twice
> the time for gimp.
I appreciate the "clarification".
I realize the problem of "pulling in python" because dependencies
require it. This is something I want to bring up for discussion on
ports@ along with a rough idea of a possible solution. It deserves its
own thread though, and I need to spend some time making sure what I
propose is at least viable. But, in the past, what I have ended up
doing, when building from ports, is find all those dependencies and
build them individually with desired FLAVOR before building the
intended port; And if the dependencies do not provide that FLAVOR I
add it locally.
I'm running GIMP 2.6.2 (no_gnome-no_python) right now on macppc
-snapshot[1]. As you can see build time is also important to me on my
pretty old g4 ibook. However, more important to me is the principle of
reducing "bloat" (especially things I don't need or won't use).
btw, GIMP 2.6.2 is working nicely. I noticed some speed up on certain
operations from prior version (2.6.0 I believe).
--patrick
> If you're building all your stuff from ports, this doesn't matter,
> but the whole point of the ports tree is to provide packages (with
> the usual exceptions for some ports due to licensing issues), and
> for bulk builds that provide you with ready-to-install packages,
> build time *does* matter a little bit more than disk space.
>
> Ciao,
> Kili
[1] kern.version=OpenBSD 4.4-current (GENERIC) #1911: Wed Oct 29
19:26:06 MDT 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/macppc/compile/GENERIC
