On 20 May 2001, at 16:36, Sven Neumann wrote:
> "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My suggestion is that the following plug-ins belong to the core
> > distribution:

[4 rules of inclusion snipped]
> > Can such a distinction be made?
> You are right that we need to make such a distinction, but I don't
> think the rules you suggested make much sense. 

Ouch. :-) I was writing a lengthy reply here, but I realised that I 
could probably sum it up as follows. When deciding what to include 
and what to leave out, you probably should also keep some vague, non-
objective criteria in mind. Actually, defining descriptive and 
objective criteria might prove impossible. What I am arguing for is 
to include a few plug-ins that may not seem to have much value for 
the average user, but that help set apart GIMP from its competition, 
help inspire plug-in writers and that are just fun to have. A good 
example would be Gee-Zoom.

> On the other hand I
> think we should first discuss how the gimp packaging should look like
> in the future instead of tackling the problem which plug-ins go into
> which package.


> I'll try to summarize some of the ideas that have come up during
> earlier discussions:
[snip what needs to be done]

Can't we use the Debian tool?

Also, it seems to me that this whole things depends on finding enough 
maintainers. Judging by the state of the web site (parts of it have 
not been kept up-to-date for a while now) that is going to be the 
real hard thing to do.

Finally, you may not be able to get around distributing binaries too. 
Windows users are not used to making their software packages, they 
want tools that install the libraries for them ready to run.

Maybe it would be easier for now to rely on the users to be able to 
collect the right packages. 

branko collin
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to