On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:20:58 +0200, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] But if there's a download button on the > front-page that directly instantiates the download, then we are > effectively providing binary packages. It doesn't matter if the packages > are hosted elsewhere. To the user it will appear as if we would provide > the binaries. I don't think that it would be a problem. Over the years, Jernej's installer has evolved into something that can only be described as an "official" package for Windows. Regarless of what we state about it, I bet that most users consider it as "the" GIMP for Windows. Providing a one-click download button is unlikely to cause more problems or confusion. The situation may be different for Mac users or users of other platforms, but then again if the web site statistics are still the same as when I last looked at them, then the majority of our visitors are using IE on Windows. It is reasonable to think that a fair number of these visitors are interested in getting "the" installer for GIMP on Windows. > If we decided that we want to do this, then we should probably really > provide the binaries and we would have to move things like the Win32 > user FAQ (http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/faq.html) and the gimp-app > bug-tracker (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-app) to gimp.org and > to our bug-tracker. I don't think we are prepared to do that. Moving the Win32 user FAQ to www.gimp.org may or may not be a good idea. I think that Jernej should state his opinion on that. Regarding gimp-app, I am not sure because we do not (or did not) get too many Mac visitors and I do not know to what extent they perceive the gimp-app package as "official". This may change if the native GTK+ port evolves, but for the moment I am not sure that we even need to have a direct download button for Mac packages. -Raphaël _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
