Hello Marc (and Gimpers)

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Marc Lehmann wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 11:04:51PM +0100, Olof S Kylander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
> >     * Make a script pkg with Script-Fu, Perl-Fu and Py-Fu scripts
> 
> A small detail is unclear to me ;) Who is supposed to make that script-pack?
> Would the release tarball contain everything, inlcuding the script, which
> would just not get installed (or which would just now show up in the menu?)?

My idea is that Gimp 1.2 is delivered with all "scripts" and "filters"
some of them aren't installed by default (most notably "scripts" but also
some C plugins). They are instead installed in
..share/gimp/uninstalled_filters/core.

The user has instead a new "Script Installer" menu item in the Xtns menu.
He can from there invoke the manager which will provide him with a list of
install able "scripts" for his Gimp system (e.g the script will not include
Python "Scripts" if that isn't supported). The user will also be informed
that her Gimp environment isn't complete since she can't run e.g Perl
"Scripts".

Additional "Script Packs" not included in core Gimp can now be installed
under e.g ..share/gimp/uninstalled_filters/utils when the "Script
Installer" installer is executed it will search all dirs in
..share/gimp/uninstalled_filters/ and list avalibel "filters" in those
directories that are supported by the Gimp system.

Additional "Script Packs" of C plugins can also be release in this
fashion. All we have to do is to make the plugin "autoconf" aware. As I
said earlier we will need a plugin maintainer. This is anyway necessary
since we now have around 250 plugins and I presume an equal amount of
Perl-Fu, Python-Fu and Script-Fu functions.


> Or is the script-pack meant to be something like "rpms", i.e. we make a
> release tarball with only the "core" functionality and one or several extra
> packs with the extension scripts/plug-ins?
> 
> In that case, will we just define "filesets" for distributors?
> 
> 
> I *think* you opted for the first alternative (everything in the tarball),
> which would require us to write something like an extension pack manager
> (a shell script? something with a gtk+ gui?).

Well I think I have answered your question and yes a gui would be a nice
thing even if it isn't necessary it will definitely be more user friendly.

Cheers Olof

Reply via email to