Hi, Dave Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> writes: > I'm with Simon - at least one scripting language installation's a good > idea. We might assume that perl or python are more or less universally > available, but we can certainly not assume that guile is always > installed. Given the fact that script-fu has historically been the > reference language binding (and it continues to be), we should go out > of our way to make sure it's available, IMHO. It's just a packaging issue. As long as we make sure that everyone can install gimp-script-fu, we have script-fu support. Do you really want to continue to include it with GIMP with all the problems that arise from doing that? I don't think it's worth it. In the long run we should move as much as possible out of the GIMP package. This will assure that we provide a stable and powerful API and will enable more extensions and plug-ins to be written. IMO moving script-fu out of the tree and putting it on the same level as gimp-perl and other language bindings is a very important thing to do. The sooner it happens the better. Actually I was considering this for 2.2 (along with gimp-python). We are not doing ourselves a favor if we treat Script-Fu any better than other language bindings. Especially since it is technically the worst of them all. Sven
