Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

gimp3: Build GIMP non relocatable #22481

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

brunvonlope
Copy link

This drops a superfluous .patch and build GIMP as non-relocatable, which is the expected way to run it in MSYS2 shells.

ping @hmartinez82

This drops a superfluous .patch and build GIMP as non-relocatable,
which is the expected way to run it in MSYS2 shells.
@lazka
Copy link
Member

lazka commented Nov 11, 2024

This disables lots of relocation code in gimp (see ENABLE_RELOCATABLE_RESOURCES). Are you sure this is what we want?

@brunvonlope
Copy link
Author

Are you sure this is what we want?

@lazka No, not sure. I'm new to MSYS2 GUI packages so that depends on what the MSYS2 project usually expects from its packages. They should be relocatable or non-relocatable?

If we suppose that the clang64 folder can be copied or moved freely, so relocatable-bundle=yes. If no so the project assumes that the clang64 works like a system prefix in the UNIX way, so relocatable-bundle=no.

@mmuetzel
Copy link
Collaborator

mmuetzel commented Nov 13, 2024

All packages distributed by MSYS2 must be relocatable in the sense that a user can choose any prefix for their MSYS2 installation. For one user, that might result in /c/msys64/ucrt64 as the prefix for their UCRT64 environment. For another user, that might be /d/my_msys2/ucrt64. For a third user, it might be something completely different.

Do you know what "relocatable" means for GIMP? Does it still support different prefixes even if it is built non-relocatable?

@brunvonlope
Copy link
Author

@mmuetzel Thanks. For GIMP, "relocatable" means exactly what you described. We will probably drop this bundling code being run by default or rework to be less pervasive, as @Jehan already pointed it to me on IRC.

@brunvonlope brunvonlope marked this pull request as draft November 13, 2024 13:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants