On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 08:11:15PM +0100, Olof S Kylander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However I'm not after a "on the fly loader". I just want a simple (i.e not
> load Gimp with bugs) way of handling/install all the scripts. Furthermore
> most users don't want all scripts. Most of the time you only want a
> subset. 

I still fail to see the difference between what you call a script and a in
normal plug-(in the python or perl case). Script-Fu scripts, OTOH, are not
normal plug-ins.

I also do not understand why the user might, say, not want to install some
script-fu script but ALWAYS wants to install ALL plug.ins written in C.

So are plug-ins written in C more useful by definition than scripts in
script-fu? This is what you imply!

> The "Script Pack" script will simply enable you to choose scripts which
> will be installed under your .gimp directory if they are supported by your
> Gimp configuration.

Again, since there is no difference between a plug-in written in C or in
perl, why not just use a "plug-in-pack" and manage your plug-ins with these?

I think the overhead of finding out wether a given executable is a
perl/python-plug-in or c is not worth the trouble.

> This will solve the Perl thing once and for all and

What's the perl thing, btw?

> ever body will be happy ;-). The script can even tell you that you don't
> have e.g Perl-XFY installed and there for you will not be able to install
> XXX script.

Just a note: this is how it's done (for perl) since more than half a
year, with the exception of the tex and povray plug-ins. All others won't
clutter the menu unless the necessary modules are found.

      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |

Reply via email to