Hi, On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Elle Stone <ellestone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/02/2014 11:32 AM, Michael Schumacher wrote: >>> >>> Von: "Elle Stone" <ellestone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> I've shown several people how to build GIMP from git. > > >> Was there a special part they needed help with? > > > No. They just wanted the quickest, easiest way to compile GIMP from git. I > sent they my "cheat sheet" of commands and referred them to the article if > any of the commands on the cheat sheet didn't make sense. Like some others here, I don't really get it. I never had any problem with GIMP compilation. GIMP uses the very common tryptic of all GNU projects (and most Free Software): ./configure && make && make install It has some dependencies, especially when compiling the git version, but they all follow the same 3-command method. I just don't get what is difficult with this. Note that I don't say this is flawless and there can't be any issue during building, but when that happens, that's a bug in the compilation process (and by itself, fixing this can be a very valid patch). In any cases *usually* this works perfectly. This is the most common compilation process ever. How can this be considered a barrier for contribution? I don't even understand how anyone may want more than what is already in the INSTALL file (which is already quite complete)... All projects with huge contribution rate have the *very exact* same compilation process (or a very similar one). Jehan >> I've read the build guide you posted yesterday, and was a bit confused by >> it. > > > Two years ago, when I wrote that article, it took me several days of > trawling the internet before I succeeded in putting together a set of > commands for building GIMP from git. I didn't consider that time well-spent, > and I was hardly a newbie at Linux, the command line, or building software > from source. > > I wrote the article mostly to remind myself what the steps are. Also a lot > of people on the GIMP user list were complaining about 2.8, so I thought it > would be neat to figure out how to install 2.6, 2.8, and 2.9 all at once. > > If I were writing the article today, I'd write it differently. I wasn't > putting it forward as a model of clarity but rather in case there were parts > someone wanted to use. > > I think the Calligra build instructions are in fact a model of clarity and > would make an excellent template for writing up how to build GIMP from git. > > >> >> Regarding said build instructions: >> >> - the config.site approach as described in e.g. Martin Nordholt's blog >> works fine for me >> I've never ever had to remember to set environment variables again > > > Two years ago I did find the Nordholt article but I couldn't figure out what > he meant by "config.site". I still can't. Looking at > http://www.gimp.org/source/howtos/gimp-git-build.html, perhaps the line: > > export ACLOCAL_FLAGS="-I $PREFIX/share/aclocal $ACLOCAL_FLAGS" > > has something to do with "config.site"? > > So I followed Shallowsky's and Lightning's instructions instead. > > >> Getting the dependencies is: >> >> - easy on reasonably recent Linux distros (apt-get build-dep, zypper -d, >> ...). > > > The Calligra build instructions have a nice set of "how tos" for the > dependencies for the most popular Linux distros. This is a nice touch > because it does vary from distro to distro. Not everyone already knows about > these commands. > > >> Where OpenHatch will provide the most benefit: >> >> - enable user to discover that there is something beyond the icons of the >> desktop environment, for example a command line interface >> - enable users to get to the point where building any software or >> documentation, including babl, gegl, gimp, the gimp user manual, plug-ins, >> ..., becomes a no-brainer >> - i.e. understanding messages like "needs libfoo..." and make it become >> "ahhh, I'll just get it from my the package management" > > > It's not that compiling from source is such a big deal. But why not make it > as easy as possible for people building GIMP for the first time? Maybe put > in a few sentences here and there explaining the obvious to people for whom > it might not be so obvious? > > Elle > > > _______________________________________________ > gimp-developer-list mailing list > List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
