At 22:51 03.11.03 +0000, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >(Redirected to gimp-developer) > >> Is there any special reason that (almost?) all win32-specific stuff >> seems to be missing from release tarballs > >No. The reason is nobody has tried to build for Win32 from a tarball, >so nobody has noticed... or at least not reported her problems. > If anyone else out there does try to build The Gimp 1.3.x with msvc please ask for help here before silently dropping it again ;-) > > (the same thing seemed to be the case with 1.3.21 already). The > > build directory is missing, > >Hmm, how are you building GIMP? Does a mingw build really use the >build directory? > >If you are using MSVC, I guess the real question is, is there any >chance that we will be able to claim supporting a MSVC build "out of >the box" with a straight face? Probably not, at least not until the issues outlined in http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2003-May/008589.html are resolved. Though I still have plans to extend Pango to allow 'render to bitmap' and 'get glyph outlines' at least with two backends (win32 and FT2), there seems to be noone else interested. And currently I don't have enough spare time to put any of it to patches not to be accepted anyway ... >The stuff in the build directory is >almost unmaintained, and requires manual intervention on the builder's >system. Is manual editing needed for the makefile.msc files? Only if there are files added or removed, so usually not that much when getting stable again ... >Anyway, >doesn't the makefile.msc files refer to ../glib/build, not a build >directory in the GIMP source directory? Right, I stil feel some 'build' configuration directory is enough, as outlined in glib/readme.win32. >(I.e., they require you to >have the glib (what version?) sources parallel to GIMP sources) > I'm almost always using recent cvs, but the same requirements as on *nix should be fine. That is the 2.2 series you are distributing should do it. >(If the GIMP's build directory is to be included in tarballs, it should >be added to the top Makefile.am.) > It isn't as noted above, so please don't. Thanks, Hans -------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org ----------- Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it. -- Dilbert
