Gimp Fails to Build

[Boey Maun Suang]

On 01/05/2007, at 15:05, markd at macports.org wrote:

> Yves de Champlain <yves at gnu-darwin.org> on Monday, April 30, 2007  
> at 8:51
> PM -0800 wrote:
>>> Is there any reason why we shouldn't just update gimp to the
>>> current gimp-2 version?  Nothing depends upon it according to
>>> pipping's find_dependents.pl script.
>>
>> good idea, if no objections come in, I'll just do that.
>
> I don't get it.  So we'll have duplicate ports with different names?

For now, yes, but I reckon that, since nothing depends on gimp, we  
can just keep increasing its version to 3.x.x or whatever it becomes  
in the future, while leaving gimp2 as the latest 2.x.x release.  This  
is a bit new compared to the naming scheme that seems to have been  
used so far, but I think would be sensible for those people and  
packages that want to track the latest and greatest, while giving an  
option for sticking with earlier versions where necessary.  I've been  
thinking about this with respect to the docbook ports, too,  
particularly with the impending version 5 release.  I envisage  
something like:

docbook412 (4.1.2)
docbook43 (4.3.x)
docbook44 (4.4.x)
docbook45 (4.5.x)
docbook4 (4.x.x)
docbook50 (5.0.x)
docbook5 (5.x.x)
docbook (whatever the latest is)

There might be consequences, however, how we maintain ports in  
future, and it also seems like a bit of a departure from how things  
have been done before, so it might be best to hold off until there  
has been some wider discussion, especially on macports-dev (where  
I've been intending to raise this anyway).  Still, I think that the  
fact that people are expecting the gimp port to be the latest version  
is understandable and a sensible thing to try to conform to.

Kind regards,


Maun Suang

-- 
Boey Maun Suang (Boey is my surname)
Email: boeyms at macports.org