On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 10:08:29PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 03:01:04PM +0000, Seth Golub <seth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > install that left out (and didn't bother to compile) most of the > > plugins. Given enough disk space, sure, I'll install whirlpinch, > > but 55MB is more than I can afford on my school account. > > Actually, the _whole_ gimp installation on an average linux x86 > machine (MINE) takes less than 13MB. My recent CVS GIMP build is almost 17 megs. du -ksc `find /usr/local -name *gimp*` gives me a total of 17296. That's compiled with pgcc 2.95.3, CFLAGS='-s -O6 -march=pentium', and --disable-static. In any case it's much smaller than 55MB! > (Note that this is no reason not to provide a minimal install, and > something like that is already planned, but 55MB is, I think, a bit > oversized). It may be that Seth is compiling with tons of debugging information in there, is not stripping his binaries, and is not using --disable-static. It may also be that he's on a platform without shared libraries :) > > Of course the hard part is deciding what should go in it. I could see > > It would be cool to have some configurator for this. Yes, I think what was mentioned before was a CPAN-style repository of plugins so that you could retrieve and install plug-ins easily. Of course since it's the GIMP we'd have to have a pretty GTK+ front-end and even better all uninstalled plug-ins could be listed in a menu in the GIMP and as soon as you want to use one it will be automagically compiled and installed. Something for GIMP 3.0 perhaps. Tom -- -- Tom Rathborne tomr@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- http://www.aceldama.com/~tomr/ -- "I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my life-style."
