Sven Neumann wrote:
> one or two things for GIMP 2.2 that I forgot:
> Script-Fu vs. Tiny-Fu
>   We should come to a conclusion whether and how Tiny-Fu can replace
>   Script-Fu. I'd suggest we make separate packages gimp-script-fu and
>   gimp-tiny-fu and remove Script-Fu from the gimp tree.

I think we could include both in the standard distribution,
making tiny-fu the default and having script-fu as a fall-back.
Despite all the testing it has had so far, it's inevitable that
tiny-fu will have some teething problems when it gains very wide
exposure in a stable GIMP.

> Python bindings
>   IMO we should move pygimp out of the gimp tree into a gimp-python
>   package. That would make it easier to give it a proper python-like
>   build environment and would make it easier for packagers. Yosh also
>   had some great plans on improving pygimp. Would probably be a good
>   idea to make these improvements independent of the GIMP release
>   cycles.

Given that this has happened for gimp-perl already, I can see the
logic in that. 

Who is maintaining gimp-python right now, by the way? yosh?


        David Neary,
        Lyon, France
CV: http://dneary.free.fr/CV/
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to