David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not just a documentation issue. The fact that perl-fu has
> been moved out of the source tree is pretty well documented.
It is what? Well documented? I don't think so. You already mentioned
yourself what would have to be done to document this properly.
> 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?
That'd be truly sick. You want to keep the scripts separately from the
script interpreter? In a different source tree, in a different package
even? Of course it would also not be technically possible. A script-fu
doesn't register itself. It needs the Script-Fu plug-in to do that.
Gimp-developer mailing list