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 <olof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
