Hi Sven, Sven Neumann wrote: > 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.
There is another alternative, which is to install both (this would perhaps confuse things...) Kevin has mentioned that script-fu and tiny-fu live quite happily together in the past. > David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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. It's not just a documentation issue. The fact that perl-fu has been moved out of the source tree is pretty well documented. However, the actual knock-on effects of that aren't particularly widely known. The fact that something is documented doesn't mean that people are going to know about it. What is needed is a list of plug-ins which are available only in perl-fu, and to somehow transfer this list to everyone downloading the GIMP sources and building from scratch, as well as packagers. We can put a file beside the traballs, listing the plug-ins that have been moved to perl-fu, but I don't think many people would read it. "They deserve what they get, then" you might say. Perhaps... I don't know of a good way to communicate that to people who should know, except on a case-by-case basis (when someone asks what happened to filter X). I think that at least we should include links to releases of gimp-perl, gimp-help and gimp-gap in the directory where the GIMP sources are shipped. That would help, I think. And gimp-perl could have a description "Extra GIMP plug-ins" rather than "perl bindings for the GIMP" or whatever. I don't know - I'm just throwing out ideas. I really don't have a good idea how we can communicate this to people for perl plug-ins, and I imagine that we will have even more problems if we do the same thing with the scheme plug-ins. How about shipping the scripts with the GIMP, and somehow informing someone when they run a script that they need either script-fu or tiny-fu installed? Is that technically possible? Could we do the same thing for python-fu and perl-fu? Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CV: http://dneary.free.fr/CV/ _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer