On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 16:57 +0200, matiphas@...8... wrote:
How about translations in custom scripts or those that don't come with the Ink's distribution?
Well, I think that in this case, it's up to the developper to contact inkscape team. Everyone gets benefits from this :
- developper can see its work validated, translated and benefits from the
distribution capability of Inkscape. (plus some support for development, and of course credit for his work)
- inkscape gets some additional tools/extensions/scripts
- user gets more translated, verified features.
I'm not sure what the right answer here is, but I think we can assume that we'll have externally defined extensions in the future.
I was talking to a guy on Jabber last night who found a package for Novell 9.2 and was trying to install it, but it required pstoedit which he didn't have installed. I told him that he can --force it because Inkscape will detect and work around that omission from his system. There was no way for him to know that, and it may stop some people from successfully getting Inkscape installed. Stuck in dependency hell.
Likewise, people expect features which require all of these dependencies so things like .deb's "suggested" cause people to not have features they'd expect in Inkscape because they don't grab the additional packages (I don't think Synaptic even shows them).
I'm kinda leaning twoards the idea of: The Inkscape team will provide the best, most complete tarball in the world and packagers can weigh these issues for their various distributions. This way we can keep all the translations and testing together, while still allowing for flexibility all round.
Thoughts and ideas are always welcome.
--Ted