Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm with Simon - at least one scripting language installation's a good
> idea. We might assume that perl or python are more or less universally
> available, but we can certainly not assume that guile is always
> installed. Given the fact that script-fu has historically been the
> reference language binding (and it continues to be), we should go out
> of our way to make sure it's available, IMHO.

It's just a packaging issue. As long as we make sure that everyone can
install gimp-script-fu, we have script-fu support. Do you really want
to continue to include it with GIMP with all the problems that arise
from doing that? I don't think it's worth it.

In the long run we should move as much as possible out of the GIMP
package. This will assure that we provide a stable and powerful API
and will enable more extensions and plug-ins to be written. IMO moving
script-fu out of the tree and putting it on the same level as
gimp-perl and other language bindings is a very important thing to do.
The sooner it happens the better. Actually I was considering this for
2.2 (along with gimp-python). We are not doing ourselves a favor if we
treat Script-Fu any better than other language bindings.  Especially
since it is technically the worst of them all.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to