Re: Extensions for the 1.0 release (report)

Am 03.04.2019 um 00:37 schrieb [email protected]:
> On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 00:26 +0200, Maren Hachmann wrote:
>> Added the eqtexsvg info to the release notes.
>> Do we know how many people were depending on it for their LaTeX
>> typesetting? Could we maybe ask for external testing, if testing via
>> CI isn't possible?
> That's a part of the question. Can we ship extensions that don't work
> by default? I think that's what the inx is designed to allow but it
> doesn't do much for our sanity.
>
> This would be made better by the future extensions manager, as such
> extensions could be held outside of inkscape's dist until the users
> needs them and asks for them.
>
> Would we be willing to wait for that for these extensions?
>
> Martin,

I think "Render -> Latex" has some decent userbase, so we might want to
think twice before dropping it. Obviously it should work for a release,
though (else it's of little use).

Considering LaTeX is primarily used by people with a
technical/scientific background who might be able to understand some
Python, we might also have a good chance at recruiting some help here
(question is how to reach those users, though, before shipping a
"broken" release).

On a side-note there are at least wo other third-party extensions that
do effectively the same and are likely better maintained (so there might
be some "oversaturation"), but I've not used any of them actively, so I
can't speak to the differences.

As for the general question: Yes, I thinks users would expect us to keep
extensions with additional dependencies, unless they're directly
available from an upstream repo/source, to which we can easily link in
the release notes.

Cheers,
Patrick