David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > 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.

Simply by asking packagers to bundle Script-Fu with GIMP. On a Debian
system, the gimp package would recommend the gimp-script-fu package.
The Win32 installer would probably simply install both. I am sure
there's a solution for every platform / distribution.

Of course this wouldn't strictly guarantee the availability of
Script-Fu but it would make it very likely. If we want to get rid of
the Script-Fu dependency in the long run, then we need to make it
optional at some point. Now seems to be a good time to do that. It
would allow people who want to switch to Tiny-Fu to install GIMP w/o
Script-Fu while the vast majority of GIMP users would continue to use
Script-Fu for now.
> 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.

That's a documentation issue. I am not going to allow the source tree
to be clobbered with more stuff simply because we are too lazy to add
some simple notes to our web-site and FTP server. In the long run we
will want to split GIMP into even more packages.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to