On 09 Oct 2002 13:45:00 +0200 Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > Shlomi Fish <shlomif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > An alternative would > > > be to distribute gimp-perl separately. In that case, I wouldn't care > > > how it is built or packaged. > > > > > > > Isn't it already the case for Gimp 1.3.x? > > no, the case for gimp-1.3 is that it ships w/o gimp-perl and there's > no separate gimp-perl package. At the moment it looks a lot as if > gimp-1.4 will not have gimp-perl support. Ouch, I would consider this to be *very* unfortunate. This combination is what makes Gimp very useful to me. Debugging script-fu scripts is beyond my capabilities. What are the reasons for not having gimp-perl support in gimp-1.4 ? What needs to be done to keep gimp-perl support in gimp-1.4 ? I think it is perfectly reasonable that gimp-perl is a completely separate package from gimp itself, and that the packaging is using the ordinary Perl mechanism (Makefile.PL, etc). AFAIK, PerlMagick is a separate package from ImageMagick, so why should Gimp be any different? -- Vegard Vesterheim : Phone: +47 73 55 79 12 UNINETT : Fax: +47 73 55 79 01 N-7465 Trondheim, NORWAY : Email: Vegard.Vesterheim@xxxxxxxxxx
