On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:06:12 +0200, David Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Sven Neumann wrote: > > David Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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. > > > > I will nominate you two (Dave and Bill) for maintainers of the meta > > tarball. > > Perhaps we could get jamesh and jdub to add GIMP modules to > jhbuild and garnome respectively, and be done with it? :) I don't think that we need something like jhbuild or garnome for a meta tarball. From my point of view, the contents of this tarball could look like this: ./configure ./Makefile.in ./gimp-2.0.4/... (all files from the standard tarball) ./gimp-gap-2.0.2/... (same for GAP) ./Gimp-2.0/... (same for Perl) ./gimp-data-extras-2.0.0/... The top-level configure script would basically contain something like AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS(gimp-2.0.4...) and the Makefile.in would contain SUBDIRS=gimp-2.0.4 etc. Autoconf has been designed to support building multiple packages from a top-level configure script, so we should take advantage of it. This meta tarball would not be very hard to create or maintain: it's just that the version numbers would have to be increased from time to time, whenever the contents of a new gimp/gimp-gap/gimp-perl/... tarball are extracted and included in the meta tarball. This would not require much effort. -Raphaël
