Hi,
Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This meta tarball would not be very hard to create or maintain: it's
> just that the version numbers would have to be increased from time to
> time, whenever the contents of a new gimp/gimp-gap/gimp-perl/... tarball
> are extracted and included in
Hi,
Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides the advantages of being distributed together with the GIMP,
> including a plug-in in the main tree has another advantage: the
> translations. Currently, it is rather hard for a plug-in distributed
> separately from the GIMP to have good tr
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:57:56PM +0200, Rapha?l Quinet wrote:
>
> One way to solve this would be to put many plug-ins in a gimp-plug-ins
> module in gnomecvs, but that would only shift the goal for the plug-in
> developers from being included in the main tree to being included in the
> "official
Alan Horkan wrote:
> I can understand that some people relish hunting for all sorts of
> different add-ons (sometimes I feel like doing that too) but I dont think
> most people do.
A better way of putting it is that many people relish hunting for
freebies, but they want it to be voluntary, not man
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:51:47 +0200, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's one aspect to splitting things out that hasn't been discussed
> yet. By splitting e.g. a plug-in out into it's own module and basing it
> on gimp-plug-in template, it becomes incredibly easy to compile it
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:06:12 +0200, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Neumann wrote:
> > David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If everything ended up in one tarball, with a single-step build,
> > > that would be grand. But I don't believe that's the intention,
> > > given the pre
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Carol Spears wrote:
> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:02:16 -0700
> From: Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GIMPDev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] on splitting things off
>
>
David Neary schrieb:
> I'm not opposed to having stuff split off, but I am worried about
the stuff getting a bit lost. Most gimp 2.0 installs (the vast
majority, I would say) don't have GAP or the perl bindings
installed. That's not a trend we should be encouraging, IMHO. In
fact, I think we need
Hi,
Quoting Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Do automake and libtool have any upcoming improvements that might
> > help with the pre-configure and linking stages that I should know
> > about?
>
> Well, what versions are you using at the moment?
1.7
Hi,
Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do automake and libtool have any upcoming improvements that might
> help with the pre-configure and linking stages that I should know
> about?
Well, what versions are you using at the moment?
Sven
___
Gimp
Quoting Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But compile time has doubled over the past couple of years
> > without a huge change in the size of the source code. It seems to
> > me that the build tools we use have gotten more i/o and more
> > pr
Hi,
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But compile time has doubled over the past couple of years
> without a huge change in the size of the source code. It seems to
> me that the build tools we use have gotten more i/o and more
> processor intensive. Is it possible we could make improveme
more,
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 06:02:16PM -0700, Carol Spears wrote:
>
> my experience with gimp is different than dave neary is talking about.
> he is saying that if you dont get everything at one time, you will not
> get it. when i first started to use gimp, it was so much fun to go
> online and
hello,
long ago when i had a job and a home and friends who were gimp
developers i had an idea of a plug-in building environment.
in the time that this environment was designed, i lost all of those
things previously listed. the environment i helped to design is now
being used successfully at ora
Hi Sven
Sven Neumann wrote:
> I don't see what's wrong with needing a jhbuild type of script to ease
> compilation (not that I have ever felt the need to use jhbuild). GIMP
> is not a desktop application. It is (or should become if it isn't yet)
> an image manipulation suite. We have several sets
Hi,
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If that's the case, we're working towards needing a jhbuild or a
> garnome for the GIMP, which just doesn't seem right - we're a
> desktop application, not a suite of developer libraries and
> desktop applications. We have one set of developers, not s
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
> David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If that's the case, we're working towards needing a jhbuild or a
> > garnome for the GIMP
[snip...]
> > If everything ended up in one tarball, with a single-step build,
> > that would be grand. But I don't believe that's the in
Hi,
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is what I understand Sven wants, eventually. As I understand
> it, if you're building from source, you're a developer.
> Otherwise, get the binaries, which will have everything packaged
> in. If I misunderstand Sven's point of view, I'm sure that
Hi,
William Skaggs wrote:
> Dave Neary wrote:
> > Splitting
> > stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
> > goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no
> > image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum number of brushes,
> > patterns and gradients doe
Sven Neumann wrote:
> I am not going to allow the source tree
> to be clobbered with more stuff simply because we are too lazy to add
> some simple notes to our web-site and FTP server. In the long run we
> will want to split GIMP into even more packages.
Dave Neary wrote:
> On another note, I'm
20 matches
Mail list logo
