Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > "Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero" <famrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > So I would split the system more at source level, so you get x groups > > and build & install them (or make distro pkgs then install) following > > an order, like you can do with GNOME, ie. ATM I already use that (with > > x=2): gimp and gimp-data-extras. > > actually this is my opinion too. I'm not convinced that we should try > to deal with binary packages. <snipped...> If by "deal with binary packages," mean make binary packages, I don't think we have the resources. Of course, we can't be indifferent to package makers of the distribution companies at the "principle and practices" level, since the workings of the plug-in manager will have an influence on how to make packages. > IMHO the best solution will be to have a bunch of standalone source > packages that follow some well-defined rules. One rule should be that > there needs to be a file that describes the package and all its > components that can be used by the plug-in manager and by the next > generation plug-in registry. I also think this general approach is correct, but the design of a package manager would take a great deal of care (albeit, very useful). This particular rule readily turns into a protocol encoding a plug-ins' dependencies on other resources, (other plug-ins, modules, libraries, interpreters), its preferences in a menuing system, version level requirements, etc. > For the moment we want to keep all plug-ins in the core package until > we have ported Gimp to Glib/GTK+-2.0. This is because we think that > a lot plug-ins will be ported very easily and having them all in one > place might ease this task. This would also be an ideal pipeline to inventory existing plug-ins with an eye toward how well they can be adapted to a package manager, what constraints they would place on the design of a package manager, establishing weak/strong dependencies among plug-ins, and deciding about functional groupings (i.e., logical packaging). > Once the port is done (and we are going to > start it very soon now), we should think about moving most of the > plug-ins out of the core CVS module. Hopefully we have made up our mind > on the new plug-in system until then. I think the Gimp could also use a "Plugin Maintainer" on par with the "Core Maintainer" to midwife this effort. Be good, be well Garry
