RE: [Jgimp-developers] Re: FilmGimp integration

[Sam R. <sa...@im...>]

Hi,

I personally prefer the external install since it simplifys the packaging.
What I definately do not want is for the filmgimp install to fail due to
java not been available. It should at least give a warning and continue.

What worries me is that there are quite a few places for java to be
installed (if its installed at all), and at least on SGI's its stability and
performance is terrible. I'm even less clear on how this affects packaging,
do we add hard requirements for the rpm packages (and others) that java be
installed? Do we require a particular version to be installed in a
particular place?

I do also have similar reservations about Perl too, since the latest perl
thats installed on redhat will not work with gimp (due to it being compiled
with threading).

So while I dont necessarily mind it being part of the package, I'm not sure
about it being required, or even built into the rpm. However, if its going
through many revisions, I would prefer to focus on making it as easy as
possible to install into filmgimp, rather than adding it to filmgimp and
then having to keep track of revisions.

FYI, I am trying to do some work to get the Makefile.am file to work, I
think I still have a way to go since there are c header files that are being
created by java (Is this for embedding c in java, do you have a link for
this setup?).

Thanks...

Sam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Terry [mailto:mt...@cc...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:25 AM
To: jgi...@li...
Subject: Re: [Jgimp-developers] Re: FilmGimp integration


Hi all -

>>As per an external install -- I think it probably does make the most
>>sense to have it as an external install. Save that, you would want to
>>have a configure switch to enable/disable the capability when compiling
>>Film Gimp. 
> 
> We shouldn't do that, unless there is something flawed with JGimp that we
> should be told about. Making Java optional would mean confusion for users
> and make Java plug-ins of diminished value.

Yup, I see your point. OK, but one thing we will definitely want to have 
is the ability for the configure script to fail gracefully if no JDK is 
installed in the system -- you don't want Java to be a requirement to 
use Film Gimp. So a configure script that keeps running and compiles 
without JGimp, and that also includes switches to enable/disable it 
would be necessary, I think. I could make these changes, but it would 
take awhile because I am not familiar with how configure scripts are 
constructed.

> Well, everything we do seems in flux. We might not include anything if
that
> was a disqualification! The question is, will JGimp destabilize Film Gimp?
> If the answer is no and it is functional enough to justify being included,
> we should go ahead and bring it in as a standard part of our release. It
> helps that decision that JGimp is under 200k.

It's difficult for me to tell whether JGimp destabilizes Film Gimp at 
this point. I know it doesn't cleanly exit at times, but it's unclear 
why that happens. I'll take a look at it sometime when I have time.

> Not as such, but the blur plug-in is simple enough. Can you use that as
your
> guide?

Yup, that's how I rolled the JGimp Makefile :) Thanks.

Mike

Michael Terry
Everyday Computing Lab, GVU Center
College of Computing, Georgia Tech
mt...@cc...




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Jgimp-developers mailing list
Jgi...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers