On 2002-06-06 at 2209.02 -0700, Philip Brown typed this mail: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 08:02:35AM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > > You did not mention, however, why pkgconfig was suddenly added to > gimp1.3.7, when it was not neccessary for gimp1.2.x > probably you should stick with the stable branch. i don't know why it hasn't been suggested before. > really? > > $ ls -l gimp-1.*/configure > -rwxr-xr-x 1 phil other 392867 Feb 9 22:21 gimp-1.2.3/configure* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 phil other 598688 May 30 06:34 gimp-1.3.7/configure* > here is another example of why the stable branch is more suited to you and your computer. > To me, longer usually == "more complex". > also, this screams "stable packages only". sticking with the stable gimp is prolly just the ticket. > Okay, thats not entirely fair, since there's more stuff in 1.3.7. > And maybe pkgconfig helps lots of output, but simplifies the INPUT stuff. > > $ ls -l gimp-1.*/configure.in > -rw-r--r-- 1 phil other 28462 Feb 3 19:23 gimp-1.2.3/configure.in > -rw-r--r-- 1 phil other 33696 May 30 06:28 gimp-1.3.7/configure.in > yep. stick with the stable gimp. 1.2 is a fine gimp. > Hmm. no, dont see any significant savings there either :-) > > So far, I just see extra hassle, to what is already a big hassle tracking > down umpteen different new packages if you're not running linux or > something that has them already. > you make the best arguement for yourself not delving into development. maybe you should take this to the user list. carol
