On 09 Oct 2002 13:45:00 +0200 Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > An alternative would
> > > be to distribute gimp-perl separately. In that case, I wouldn't care
> > > how it is built or packaged.
> > >
> > Isn't it already the case for Gimp 1.3.x?
> no, the case for gimp-1.3 is that it ships w/o gimp-perl and there's
> no separate gimp-perl package. At the moment it looks a lot as if
> gimp-1.4 will not have gimp-perl support.
Ouch, I would consider this to be *very* unfortunate. This combination
is what makes Gimp very useful to me. Debugging script-fu scripts is
beyond my capabilities. What are the reasons for not having gimp-perl
support in gimp-1.4 ?
What needs to be done to keep gimp-perl support in gimp-1.4 ?
I think it is perfectly reasonable that gimp-perl is a completely
separate package from gimp itself, and that the packaging is using the
ordinary Perl mechanism (Makefile.PL, etc). AFAIK, PerlMagick is a
separate package from ImageMagick, so why should Gimp be any
Vegard Vesterheim : Phone: +47 73 55 79 12
UNINETT : Fax: +47 73 55 79 01
N-7465 Trondheim, NORWAY : Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gimp-developer mailing list