Vegard Vesterheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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 ?
the main reason is that AFAIK gtk+-perl hasn't been ported to GTK+-2.0
yet. We will most probably get Python support in GIMP-1.4, so perhaps
that would suit your needs better than Script-Fu (which will
eventually get ported to Guile or another Scheme interpreter).
> 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
I agree and I think that GIMP-Python (and probably Script-Fu) should
as well be separate packages.
Gimp-developer mailing list