On 2003-05-11 at 2053.53 +0200, Marc A. Lehmann typed this: > On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 12:04:33PM -0400, Carol Spears <cspears@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The other alternative would be to do seperate releases (i.e. rip it out). > > > > > does this mean separate downloads for people who want current gimp-1.2? > > Well, people who want it usually do sth. like "apt-get upgrade", so it > already is a seperate download ;) People who download the source would > need two downloads them, of course (or use CPAN). > > It has proven to be very difficult to integrate some plug-ins, especially > the perl plug-in, since it's not only difficult to integrate it with > automake, but plain impossible, since people expect gimp-perl to work > with the vendor-supplied perl as well as with gimp, which often is plain > impossible. > > That's not a problem on linux and freebsd, and I assumed that admins of > such broken osses like irix (I am one) would know about these issues, but > this seemed to have been a wrong assumption. > > Seperating gimp-perl from gimp would help pinpoint problems. If gimp works > but gimp-pelr fails to link, this narrows down the area wheer one has to > look. > > Also, since gimp-perl is now part of every normal distribution the > pressure to distribute it with gimp is not as big. > > Wether it makes _sense_ to do that in the maintainance branch is a totally > different question. > please don't do this in the 1.2 branch. i would love to strip the extra stuff from gimp and offer them in a more educational environment (if you need it) but it would be bad to suddenly revert to this old way of getting gimp-perl at what might be the very last release. a mess for the web site also. this would be a web maintenance concern it would be nice also, if someone would get perl working in the new branch. this is more like one users pipedream, however. carol
