> Any technical comments on this solution? I think I will just say scratch that idea, it would work for installing but it was not well thought out otherwise :). **** Anyhow, I posted on the GHNS mailing list, mostly quoting Alexia Death and asking if anyone has used ghns for dependencies before. The response :) On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 02:05 +0200, Josef Spillner wrote: > Packages which are unpacked at installation time and expand to several folders > at once are easily possible and are already in use. However, dependencies > between GHNS entries are not supported, each entry needs to be usable on its > own or describe dependencies in its documentation. > > It would be nice to know some details about the Gimp use case to see whether > something can be done about it and how representative it is of general > potential GHNS usage in Gimp. I would like to see GHNS support in there, even > if it won't cover all use cases at the beginning. Can anyone provide (a) use case(s)? For me it comes down to our product vision "GIMP is user-extendable by one click install of addons" (not quite verbatim, gui.gimp.org keeps going down for me) What is the point of that if we have to remove 3-15 things for every addon (mis-clicks could be very painful). If you are allowed break dependencies through the interface then have a script/plugin throw an error message saying brush-x-y-z is missing and I can't work fix-me OR avoid my menu entry (no-doubt this is the way some people would choose to go). That for me is painful, but I am unsure how to phrase this as a use case regards, Stephen. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
