Hi, On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 04:48 +0100, Stephan Hegel wrote:
> You are right: you _should_ read them. But reality is that only a few people > do > this. And finally we end up with threads like this where a program even does > not > start out of the box 'cause it's grabbing a wrong library. > > As I said the wrapper script is not only a problem of the development version, > you need this wrapper also with the stable version of The Gimp when installing > it in a non-standard location. Take an average Windows user: usually he runs > an > install.exe, can store the application at any place on his harddisks and at > the > end of this procedure the program often is even launched ... Done. > > Sorry, but I stick with my opinion that the problem is caused by the > installation > procedure of The Gimp. It should install the wrapper by itself. And it could > be > done easily: create a wrapper template, during make or make install replace > the > path with the --prefix passed from configure, install it and print a message > where the wrapper is so that the user know what to invoke. You are making a wrong assumption here about the target audience of a source release. Users are not the target audience. Users should grab a pre-compiled binary from their distributor or from someone who knows what he's doing and provides one for them. The target audience of a source code release are people who are experienced in building software from source. They do appreciate the standard autoconf/automake based build and install procedures that GIMP provides. They would hate us if we deviated from this standard build process and started to install wrapper scripts. Sven _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
