On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:33 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One thing that concerns me with Gimp development in general and of which
> these changes are a good example is lack of concern for backwards
> A lot of people have contributed in one way or another to gimp over time
> but that does not mean they will always be here or be able to provide
> never ending support for things , like a plugin, they have contributed.
> There was a powerful suite of plugins written by a German maths doctor
> that got dropped a long time back. It seemed, having done the job once ,
> he did not have the time to redo it when gimp decided to change the
What interface change do you mean? The plug-in API and ABI are
supposed to be backward-compatible. Any incompatibility you find is
a bug that will be fixed.
> There is also problems with the way changes broke the interface with
> gimp=print, amongst other things. Gimp 2.3 is still seriously unfinished
> as far as the print dlg goes yet it seems I still cannot use gutenprint
> with 2.2 . Net result I can't use my printer with gimp. As I understood
> that rather contentious exchanges between Sven and the gp lead dev this
> was because there were incompatible changes in the API. (If there's a way
> around this please correct me, and please do not take this as an attempt
> to reopen the heated arguements this issue invovled. The issue is that of
> continuity vs breakage).
What keeps you from using the gutenprint gimp plug-in? All stable gimp
versions have a working print plug-in. The developer version being
broken in some areas is something you just have to live with.
> There are quite obvious issues with running everything in the same name
> space. Surely the best way to address this issue would be to run a
> separate instance of the interpreter rather than put new conditions on the
> scripts that breaks a number of the ones in the registry and very likely
> at lot that are not. This would seem to be a work around for a flaw in the
> way gimp handles this.
The script-fu incompatibility issues you raise are due to the fact that
we switched from the totally antique and unmaintained SIOD to something
sane. I hope you don't want to get back to SIOD and re-introduce all
> Since this is one of your goals anyway , wouldn't it save a lot of effort
> all round and preserve a number of plugins that may not get ported across,
> if this could be brought forward?
Are you talking about plug-ins or script-fu scripts?
Gimp-developer mailing list