> Any technical comments on this solution?
I think I will just say scratch that idea, it would work for
installing but it was not well thought out otherwise :).
Anyhow, I posted on the GHNS mailing list, mostly quoting Alexia Death
and asking if anyone has used ghns for dependencies before. The
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 02:05 +0200, Josef Spillner wrote:
> Packages which are unpacked at installation time and expand to several folders
> at once are easily possible and are already in use. However, dependencies
> between GHNS entries are not supported, each entry needs to be usable on its
> own or describe dependencies in its documentation.
> It would be nice to know some details about the Gimp use case to see whether
> something can be done about it and how representative it is of general
> potential GHNS usage in Gimp. I would like to see GHNS support in there, even
> if it won't cover all use cases at the beginning.
Can anyone provide (a) use case(s)?
For me it comes down to our product vision
"GIMP is user-extendable by one click install of addons" (not quite
verbatim, gui.gimp.org keeps going down for me)
What is the point of that if we have to remove 3-15 things for every
addon (mis-clicks could be very painful). If you are allowed break
dependencies through the interface then have a script/plugin throw an
error message saying brush-x-y-z is missing and I can't work fix-me OR
avoid my menu entry (no-doubt this is the way some people would choose
to go). That for me is painful, but I am unsure how to phrase this as
a use case
Gimp-developer mailing list