Re: [gimp-devel] Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 10:28:04PM -0500, Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you provide the subject line of any one of the messages when you reported the problems with script-fu which you say have not been fixed and/or a date when one of the messages was posted to the list? The most recent message I can find is Subject: script-fu maintained? Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:48:53 +0100 The result of that thread was that I changed script-fu function names from using "-" to using "_", but the bug persisted. I cannot find the bug report to the bug tracking system, but it might have been so old that it is in the wilberworks bug tracker. Due to a crash I do not have archives of earlier messages, but this error has benn popping up every few months since shortly after 1.1 came out. I don't the above is script-fu related as such. This is all I was able to find so far. Indeed it isn't. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 03:29:53PM +0100, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 01:52:40AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I won't unless someone tells us what he thinks is broken. Well, telling "us" about it didn't help in the past, so why should it now? "us" should mean "the script-fu maintainer", and not me nor you. From PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS: So what? Sven obviously has not enough time to care for everything in the Gimp. Critical bugs in Script-Fu have not been fixed for over a year, despite a considerable number of good bug-reports. PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS is just a file... fatc is that bugs _do_ _not_ _get_ _fixed_, so script-fu is basically unmaintained. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote: So what? Sven obviously has not enough time to care for everything in the Gimp. Critical bugs in Script-Fu have not been fixed for over a year, despite a considerable number of good bug-reports. That is VERY vague. What are these 'critical bugs'? Obviously we do not know about them or someone would already have given Sven a list of bug IDs. If re-reporting the bug is so painful that you can't do it, why don't you at least send the list of IDs to the mailing list? What's a "considerable number" of bug reports? Have these bugs been reported multiple times? If so, they should be condensed to one ID -- again, WHAT bug reports are you talking about? They are not SO critical that I have been unable to use script-fu -- there was a time when there were many that were, but they have been getting fixed rather regularly. PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS is just a file... fatc is that bugs _do_ _not_ _get_ _fixed_, so script-fu is basically unmaintained. Marc, I realize you must be frustrated with the bugs you report not getting fixed, and whatever this bug is in particular, but if you would just take the time to re-report it I am sure that Sven would find the time to repair it or at least get back to you. When I have reported script-fu bugs in the past, Sven has contacted ME personally and fixed the bug (sometimes noting that it was similiar to a previously-reported bug). Turnaround time was about two weeks or so each time, which I do not feel is unreasonable for something that he is working on in his spare time. Rather than all the fire and brimstone about script-fu's shortcomings, why don't you (a) help out and fix it or (b) allow Sven (and others) to do his job and re-report bugs occasionally if they do not get fixed. Finally, I really don't believe that you contacted him personally, or that if you did it was only with one brief email during a busy time for him, just so you could say that you DID try to contact him and offer it as proof. Everything you have said so far on this listabout script-fu and its maintainer is completely antithetical to my experience with them.
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 11:30:05AM -0500, Kelly Lynn Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS is just a file... fatc is that bugs _do_ _not_ _get_ _fixed_, so script-fu is basically unmaintained. You could, of course, fix them yourself. :) As a matter of fact, I couldn't. Why do you think I could? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:53:30 +0100, Marc Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: As a matter of fact, I couldn't. Why do you think I could? Anybody can do anything, with enough effort. :) Kelly
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
If re-reporting the bug is so painful that you can't do it It is so painful because I re-reported it at least three times (so many mails are in my saent-folder, but I know I sent more that got lost during a crash). They are not SO critical that I have been unable to use script-fu They are ciritcal enough that some plug-ins (like the logulator) never worked because of it. Could you provide the subject line of any one of the messages when you reported the problems with script-fu which you say have not been fixed and/or a date when one of the messages was posted to the list? I am searching the mailing list archives but there are so many messages I haven't found it yet. Using "script-fu" as a search criteria only 206 messages were found. I haven't found one yet which seems to mention script-fu problems in the subject line. I did find the following message from around May of 1999: 1. Gimp segfaults on the first PDB call to gimp_paintbrush. The reason is that the pointer "paintbrush_options" (app/paintbrush.c) is NULL as it isn't initialized automatically. I haven't checked but if other tools use a similar technique these also won't work. (I also haven't checked wether this depends on the global paint options setting). 2. Also, could somebody tell me how I can set the tool options? I seem unable to use gradients from my scripts. 3. How do I use the ink tool? There seems to be now way of using it from scripts. 4. --with-mp=yes slows down the paintbrush tool by approximately 5791%, if not more. (seriously, drawing a line takes 5 seconds instead of 0.2), this was tested with the Circle (01) brush. The same is true for the pencil tool but NOT for the ink tool, which is still fast. I don't the above is script-fu related as such. This is all I was able to find so far. Cheers! Kevin. (http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/) Internet:kcozens at interlog.com |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" or:ve3syb at rac.ca |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: Packet:ve3syb@va3bbs.#scon.on.ca.na| Try to assimilate the world!" #include disclaimer/favourite| -Pinkutus the Borg
Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 01:52:40AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I won't unless someone tells us what he thinks is broken. Well, telling "us" about it didn't help in the past, so why should it now? "us" should mean "the script-fu maintainer", and not me nor you. Of course it will get fixed then since it would be stupid to release 1.2 if there are any known Script-Fu bugs in there. I, for example, reported that bug and how to reproduce it in minute detail at least 3 times (maybe even more) during the last 15 months(!). If you look through the archives of gimp-developers and gimp-users you will find that this bug is being reported quite regularly. So yes, I do not believe that script-fu will work in 1.2. I also believe that script-fu needs a real maintainer who cares for it, not somebody like you who should better do other things. Fact is, however, that script-fu is basically unmaintained. The bugs that I reported during the last year did not get fixed (with rare exceptions when you, mitch or me did it), and it is less then clear who is "responsible" for that plug-in. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
Marc Lehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 01:52:40AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I won't unless someone tells us what he thinks is broken. Well, telling "us" about it didn't help in the past, so why should it now? "us" should mean "the script-fu maintainer", and not me nor you. From PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS: --- NAME : script-fu AUTHOR : Spencer Kimball Peter Mattis MAINTAINER : Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIZE : 463.2 kB in 11 files (only C files counted) COMMENT: --- Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
Marc, don't take this too personally, it is not and was never meant to be! I won't unless someone tells us what he thinks is broken. Well, telling "us" about it didn't help in the past, so why should it now? "us" should mean "the script-fu maintainer", and not me nor you. Well, since nobody wanted to take the job and I do like Script-Fus I registered myself as Script-Fu maintainer a while ago. I have since then (and before) tried to fix all Script-Fu related bugs that I knew of. Have a look at the bug-tracking system. IIRC there's not a single open Script-Fu bug listed there. I do however see some Perl-related bugreports, but I'm starting to get off-topic... I, for example, reported that bug and how to reproduce it in minute detail at least 3 times (maybe even more) during the last 15 months(!). Oops, then I must have thought it was related to the other bugs that got fixed. I can't remember a detailed bugreport however. You should know that to be sure that a bug gets attention and isn't forgotten there is only one proper way to report it: use the bug-tracker on bugs.gnome.org. If you look through the archives of gimp-developers and gimp-users you will find that this bug is being reported quite regularly. I don't read gimp-users, sorry! So yes, I do not believe that script-fu will work in 1.2. I also believe that script-fu needs a real maintainer who cares for it, not somebody like you who should better do other things. Ehhh, I hope you didn't meant to say what I read out of this sentence... I really don't know what bug you are talking about actually, so please, would you take the time to file a proper bugreport? Salut, Sven
Re: End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 01:41:55AM +0100, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been using the Perl plug-in logulator for logos for quite a while, and I ran into several Good ;) However, it seems that scripts converted from script-fu to perl have a large tendency to crash the gimp (yes, in ever unpredictable ways). 1) The Xtns/Render/Inbevel plug-in runs fine on A and B, but on B if I The layers window is then opened, but the three layers resulting have an The layers dialog was (is?) pretty much broken at some days ;) This is probbaly being fixed soon. a) In the SOTA Chrome script, the chrome factor bar won't accept other values than the default one (0.8). Well spotted... Actually, this seems to be a bug in the sota-chrome script-fu, which specifies a page size of 2 (and the rand is only 0 to 1). I have no idea why script-fu isn'T affected by this (maybe it just ignores the pagesize). Fixed. b) The Glossy script is also tricky, because it will stop if the 'Accept [thats the script-fu bug] parameter isn't 0.51 any further, but '0'... How is this possible? When it stops, the $inc_shrink value is all the time 0.51, but gimp_selection_shrink is called with (0,0)... gimp_selection_shrink expects an integer, and 0.51 == 0 in that domain. As I already said earlier, however, I think that shrinking a selection by zero pixels is a very valid operation. I'll look into that. e) In the last script, finally, Web Header Logo, an error is issued because Fixed. I've already been in contact with Marc Lehman, the creator and mantainer of the Perl Plug-in, who suggested me I could have hit here the script-fu bug. In the meantime, your bug-report has vastly improved ;- Only the case b) seems to be "the script-fu bug" itself. Shall we conclude that the perl plug-in will never work without a new version of script-fu? Glossy will not work until script-fu is fixed (there are, I think one or two others who depend on script-fu as well). I don't believe in script-fu getting fixed before 1.2, though. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
End-user feedback: Perl logulator innerbevel
Hi all!
I've been using the Perl plug-in logulator for logos for quite a while, and
I ran into several
(probably) little troubles, but I am clueless on whether other people are
having them, so I would like to call for someone to share their experiences
and tests of this powerful and nice tool. I am really incredibly curious to
know whether someone out there have got a perfectly running copy of the
logulator...
I am running a quite (IMHO) updated linux box, with latest gtk+ (1.2.6),
Perl Gtk (0.7000), and perl (5.000_03), gimp (cvs tree 17Jan00, with a nice
fix of the layers dialog bug , which made the latest 1.1.15 release hardly
reliable). I am running the same gimp version and libs and perl modules on
two linux boxes, one (A) with a self compiled perl under egcs-1.1.1, the
other with a SuSe Linux 6.2 shipped perl (B).
1) The Xtns/Render/Inbevel plug-in runs fine on A and B, but on B if I
invoke the layers dialogue after it has normally and gracefully exited, a
gimp sigsegv follows (argh). On A instead this message is issued:
Gdk-CRITICAL **: file gdkwindow.c: line 1390 (gdk_window_get_size):
assertion `window != NULL' failed.
The layers window is then opened, but the three layers resulting have an
incredibly long name, which corresponds to a full path to a file in the perl
directory, ending with #number [I'll paste this long path if someone will
answer me ;)].
2) The logulator shows problems when invoking the SOTA Chrome, the Glossy
and Neon scripts, the Particle trace script, The Web header logo script
(last one in the menu).
a) In the SOTA Chrome script, the chrome factor bar won't accept other
values than the default one (0.8).
b) The Glossy script is also tricky, because it will stop if the 'Accept
bumpmap defaults' is checked, with an error message to the STDERR, stating
that another process is waiting for input ("shouldn't happen" ends the
message). Furthermore the Flatten image option doesn't work, and the image
is 'always' flatted, even when the button isn't pressed (default).
c) The Neon script is the most mysterious, though... Basically, with a text
layer with a font which isn't so big as the default Blippo 150px, an error
'logulator: gimp_edit_fill procedural database execution failed at line 1902
(ERROR)' is issued. I've tried some humble hacking around in the logulator
itself, and discovered something: if I run the script over a big enough text
layer, it tends to work (but not consecutively, and not using different
fonts). I also was successful trying to resize the layer and shrink it by
some (10-20) pixels than the image... In latter case the
gimp_selection_shrink at line 1917 failed next. The oddest here is that
while in the trace a few lines above gimp_selection_shrink(0, 0.51) () seems
to work fine, when later (l. 1917) it is called by the script, the second
parameter isn't 0.51 any further, but '0'... How is this possible? When it
stops, the $inc_shrink value is all the time 0.51, but gimp_selection_shrink
is called with (0,0)...
d) In the Particle Trace script no errors are issued, but unfortunately the
final result hasn't much to do with the one obtained running the script-fu
original script... The green despeckled text gets covered by the shadow (is
this relating to the despeckle plug-in?)
e) In the last script, finally, Web Header Logo, an error is issued because
the gimp_color_picker isn't called with enough parameters. I added the
needed parameters according to PDB, and the script worked, but I never
understood whether the gray (?) background I obtained was really in the mind
of the person who initially wrote the script! ;)
I've already been in contact with Marc Lehman, the creator and mantainer of
the Perl Plug-in, who suggested me I could have hit here the script-fu bug.
Shall we conclude that the perl plug-in will never work without a new
version of script-fu? So my question is, whether some of the gimp developers
are interested in fixing this up, since the perl plug-in is really making of
gimp an even more powerful and astonishing tool than it ever was.
Mike
