Sven Neumann wrote:
> Why wouldn't that be the case any longer? It would only be packaged
> in a separate source tree. Of course every GIMP installation would
> include it.

How would you enfore the dependency? I don't understand how
removing script-fu from the source tree and having it present in
every GIMP installation are compatible propositions.

On a side point (which is relevant), there are many users on
Usenet who have been downloading the GIMP and building it from
sources, who have been asking why so many plug-ins were removed
from the GIMP between 1.2 and 2.0 - the plug-ins that have been
"removed" are perl-fu plug-ins which were transparently included
in 1.2.x if you were building the main GIMP source tree and had
perl installed, and that's no longer the case.

The point I'm hoping to make is that there is a lot of work to be
done when moving something out of the main source tree in letting
people know that it's been moved, and where to get it, and what's
included. The fact that certain plug-ins were perl rather than C
or script-fu was irrelevant to the people who were just looking
for the plug-in.


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

Reply via email to