On 6/24/05, Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Michael Schumacher wrote: > > > Great work! Seems like we will finally have pygimp 2.4 for GIMP 2.4 on each > > of the officially supported platforms. Hm, how about letting > > Script-Fu/Tiny-Fu die in favor of it? ;) > > The best thing about Script-Fu has been knowing it would be available and > included in the 'default install'. Many existing scripts are written in > Script-Fu and as you know we still regularly get users asking how to get > and old script to work with the current version. > > >From a technical standpoint it is great that Python and Perl subsystems > are well achitectured and entirely seperable but the failure of > distributors to include them in the 'default install' or even bother to > build them has dicouraged people from using them. Making it possible to > leave things out is different from it being a good idea to leave things > out and I do not think users are given the best impression of the GIMP > because to the ordinary user if it is not installed it may as well not > exists. > > My point is Script-Fu remains useful despite it's flaws and I am concerned > by the potential side-effects of killing it off.
Agreed! There is great value in having a scripting interface that is guaranteed to be present in any gimp installation. Regardless of how hard we implore, people are quite simply not going to universally include script-fu in their gimp packages if we package it separately ourselves. That is human nature. While I think it would be great to replace script-fu with tiny-fu, it would be a big mistake to ship a gimp tarball that doesn't include either. Rockwalrus _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
