On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 09:56:28PM +0200, Ulf-D. Ehlert wrote: > Roman Joost (Donnerstag, 11. Oktober 2007, 13:44): > > Usually no. It would be much better if you could attach your patch to > > the bug. In the meantime I talked to Sven who suggested to handle the > > image files recursivly. > > If we don't want this nice output when copying, we can consider > something like > > [...] solutions Yeah - I thought about this as well. Sven proposed (correct me if I'm wrong) that every (or most) image directory contains a Makefile which keeps care of "building", copying, installing etc. So the installation will scale better with the amount of images ... > > Ulf, lets do it that way: I'll attach my patch to the bug, which > > fixes the dist target. Could you check if you could fix the install > > procedure with a find, xargs command? > > I've attached my patch to bug #481338 (did you mean that?). Great - I'll try it :) > BTW, if possible we should replace ':=' with '=' when defining the > IMAGE_* macros, so that they are only expanded when needed. Sounds good to me. Create a bug with a bug attached which fixes it, or better (if it's just a minor thing) fix the macros yourself :) -- Roman Joost www: http://www.romanofski.de email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
