Hi,
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why wouldn't that be the case any longer? It would only be packaged
in a separate source tree. Of course every GIMP installation would
include it.
How would you enfore the dependency? I don't understand how
removing script-fu from the source
On another note, I'm not sure this is a desirable goal. splitting
stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
that does seem like a valid risk to consider
goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no
image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum
Kevin Cozens wrote:
Replacing Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu could help push Tiny-Fu along a bit
(ie. with translations) if it isn't fully ready yet by exposing it to
more users but what is in the best interest of GIMP and its users?
I'm actually quite sympathetic, but it doesn't seem to me that
Replacing Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu could help push Tiny-Fu along a bit
(ie. with translations) if it isn't fully ready yet by exposing it to
more users but what is in the best interest of GIMP and its users?
I know I'd much prefer another stable release with Script-Fu in it first,
but that is
