Hi, David Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> writes: > This is what I understand Sven wants, eventually. As I understand > it, if you're building from source, you're a developer. > Otherwise, get the binaries, which will have everything packaged > in. If I misunderstand Sven's point of view, I'm sure that he'll > correct me. > > If that's the case, we're working towards needing a jhbuild or a > garnome for the GIMP, which just doesn't seem right - we're a > desktop application, not a suite of developer libraries and > desktop applications. We have one set of developers, not several > dozens. > > If everything ended up in one tarball, with a single-step build, > that would be grand. But I don't believe that's the intention, > given the precedents of GAP and gimp-perl. Creating such a meta tarball would be trivial and could of course be done. I doubt however that users would want to use such a beast. You wouldn't want to download a 50MB tarball everytime some new brushes are being added or a bug-fix release of the core shows up. Of course for the initial installation, if people really want to build from source, they would probably use the meta tarball. I will nominate you two (Dave and Bill) for maintainers of the meta tarball. Sven
