Hi, Vegard Vesterheim <Vegard.Vesterheim@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > 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 ? the main reason is that AFAIK gtk+-perl hasn't been ported to GTK+-2.0 yet. We will most probably get Python support in GIMP-1.4, so perhaps that would suit your needs better than Script-Fu (which will eventually get ported to Guile or another Scheme interpreter). > 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? I agree and I think that GIMP-Python (and probably Script-Fu) should as well be separate packages. Salut, Sven
