Hi, David Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> writes: > > Why wouldn't that be the case any longer? It would only be packaged > > in a separate source tree. Of course every GIMP installation would > > include it. > > How would you enfore the dependency? I don't understand how > removing script-fu from the source tree and having it present in > every GIMP installation are compatible propositions. Simply by asking packagers to bundle Script-Fu with GIMP. On a Debian system, the gimp package would recommend the gimp-script-fu package. The Win32 installer would probably simply install both. I am sure there's a solution for every platform / distribution. Of course this wouldn't strictly guarantee the availability of Script-Fu but it would make it very likely. If we want to get rid of the Script-Fu dependency in the long run, then we need to make it optional at some point. Now seems to be a good time to do that. It would allow people who want to switch to Tiny-Fu to install GIMP w/o Script-Fu while the vast majority of GIMP users would continue to use Script-Fu for now. > On a side point (which is relevant), there are many users on > Usenet who have been downloading the GIMP and building it from > sources, who have been asking why so many plug-ins were removed > from the GIMP between 1.2 and 2.0 - the plug-ins that have been > "removed" are perl-fu plug-ins which were transparently included > in 1.2.x if you were building the main GIMP source tree and had > perl installed, and that's no longer the case. That's a documentation issue. I am not going to allow the source tree to be clobbered with more stuff simply because we are too lazy to add some simple notes to our web-site and FTP server. In the long run we will want to split GIMP into even more packages. Sven
