On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 09:35:09AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > Manish Singh wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 06:15:17PM +0100, David Neary wrote: > >>The point is that as it is, gegl is not a standalone project. > >But it *is* a standalone project. That's been the intent from the > >beginning. > >I don't see how "incubation" helps it in any way. There are people who > >have indicated wanting to use it for other projects besides GIMP already. > > OK - fair enough. It's a standalone project. But we're going to use it, > and need it, and from what I recall, calvin was looking for more GIMP > input into what it should do. How do you propose we get that kind of > communication happenning? Not sure. Something to think about more post-2.0. > >GTK+ was distributed as part of GIMP until people found out that "hey, this > >is a useful general purpose toolkit". We already know that with GEGL. There > >weren't any notable positive benefits with keeping GTK+ as part of the GIMP > >tree. > > Except that until people noticed that it was a useful general purpose > toolkit, it kept getting worked on, with a particular application in > mind... I think that being part of the GIMP was enormously beneficial to > gtk+. The beneficial part was having GIMP use GTK+. Period. Having it part of the actual source tree didn't really contribute to that benefit much at all, since it would've gotten worked on regardless. In fact, it was a minor hindrance, since GIMP specific stuff like GtkGamma got stuck in the general purpose library, and now the GTK+ folk have to maintain it when it doesn't actually belong. > >There isn't any point. The problem with dependencies most people have is > >not downloading and installing tarballs, but rather the mess that is > >Freetype library incompatibilites and by extension any of the things > >that directly depend on it. > > > >GEGL doesn't depend on any external library GIMP doesn't already need. > > I'm afraid I didn't follow the logic of this... how is this a > counter-argument to having gegl and gimp downloads in the same directory? > > Note, I'm no longer advocating shipping gegl as part of the GIMP sources > - although I see no reason not to do that personally, I can see that > most people are against it and don't consider it the thing to do (that > said, only 3 people have replied with a preference). You didn't propose having gegl and gimp downloads in the same directory till today. So I don't follow the logic. ;) I don't really mind symlinking the gegl sources into the gimp ftp dir, but that's a fairly minor thing. Most people follow webpage links rather than poking through an ftp site these days, and the download webpage should of course link to gegl. -Yosh
