Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
> one or two things for GIMP 2.2 that I forgot:
>
> Script-Fu vs. Tiny-Fu
>
> We should come to a conclusion whether and how Tiny-Fu can replace
> Script-Fu. I'd suggest we make separate packages gimp-script-fu and
> gimp-tiny-fu and remove Script-Fu from the gimp tree.
I think we could include both in the standard distribution,
making tiny-fu the default and having script-fu as a fall-back.
Despite all the testing it has had so far, it's inevitable that
tiny-fu will have some teething problems when it gains very wide
exposure in a stable GIMP.
> Python bindings
>
> IMO we should move pygimp out of the gimp tree into a gimp-python
> package. That would make it easier to give it a proper python-like
> build environment and would make it easier for packagers. Yosh also
> had some great plans on improving pygimp. Would probably be a good
> idea to make these improvements independent of the GIMP release
> cycles.
Given that this has happened for gimp-perl already, I can see the
logic in that.
Who is maintaining gimp-python right now, by the way? yosh?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
CV: http://dneary.free.fr/CV/
