On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Sven Neumann wrote:


> 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.

Slimming down the core by moving things out to other packages is very
sensible.  It keeps the core smaller and easier to build without having
any significant impact on users, so long as packagers are smart about it.
(On a side note, I really dont like Firefox because they threw out some
many little bits I actually liked without rolling them out as a package of
plug-ins, which is a mistake I am very glad the gimp has avoided.
Adding back in the bits you like - if they are even availabe as plugins -
is far less convienent than sticking with Mozilla.)

Do you foresee a "gimp-plugins" package?

gimpressionist (and its nonstandard data files), gfig, and imagemap add a
quite lot bulk to the gimp and I would think of as prime candidates to be
rolled out to such a package.

I dont ever expect to be using Dicom (a medical file format) but I dont
think getting rid of it would necessarily be a good idea either.  The way
I see it at a minimum gimp core would only really need XCF PNG and JPEG
(I'd immediately add in PSD but I think that is probably just me).

Is this remotely like what you have in mind because I would be
interested to hear more.

- Alan
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to