Hi, David Neary <bolsh@xxxxxxxx> writes: > It's not just a documentation issue. The fact that perl-fu has > been moved out of the source tree is pretty well documented. It is what? Well documented? I don't think so. You already mentioned yourself what would have to be done to document this properly. > How about shipping the scripts with the GIMP, and somehow > informing someone when they run a script that they need either > script-fu or tiny-fu installed? Is that technically possible? > Could we do the same thing for python-fu and perl-fu? That'd be truly sick. You want to keep the scripts separately from the script interpreter? In a different source tree, in a different package even? Of course it would also not be technically possible. A script-fu doesn't register itself. It needs the Script-Fu plug-in to do that. Sven
