Kevin Cozens wrote:
> Replacing Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu could help push Tiny-Fu along a bit
> (ie. with translations) if it isn't fully ready yet by exposing it to
> more users but what is in the best interest of GIMP and its users?
I'm actually quite sympathetic, but it doesn't seem to me that y
> On another note, I'm not sure this is a desirable goal. splitting
> stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
that does seem like a valid risk to consider
> goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no
> image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum
Hi,
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On another note, I'm not sure this is a desirable goal. splitting
> stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
> goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no
> image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum nu
Hi,
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 pr
Hi again,
Sven Neumann wrote:
> 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.
On another note, I'm not sure t
Hi Sven,
Sven Neumann wrote:
> 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 majorit
Hi,
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
> 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 presen
Hi,
Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fear having to rewrite some of my scripts having already written
> gimp 1.2 and gimp 2.0 versions. Compatibility is important to me,
> even if only small changes are necessary it causes problems. I dont
> relish the prospect of new scripts I write
Hi,
Nathan Carl Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I'll again repeat my objection to the idea that the scheme
> extension be packaged separately from GIMP. We have always had
> Script-Fu as a universal -- the one scripting system you could count
> on for all gimp installations on every
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Alan Horkan wrote:
>
> > Replacing Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu could help push Tiny-Fu along a bit
> > (ie. with translations) if it isn't fully ready yet by exposing it to
> > more users but what is in the best interest of GIMP and its users?
>
> I know I'd much prefer another stab
> Replacing Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu could help push Tiny-Fu along a bit
> (ie. with translations) if it isn't fully ready yet by exposing it to
> more users but what is in the best interest of GIMP and its users?
I know I'd much prefer another stable release with Script-Fu in it first,
but that is
12 matches
Mail list logo
