Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:33:40 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is also problems with the way changes broke the interface
with gimp=print, amongst other things. Gimp 2.3 is still seriously
unfinished as far as the print dlg goes yet it seems I still cannot
use gutenprint with 2.2.
What problem are you having using Gutenprint with GIMP 2.2? It should
work fine, and I'd like to help you fix it.
Net result I can't use my printer with
gimp. As I understood that rather contentious exchanges between
Sven and the gp lead dev this was because there were incompatible
changes in the API.
That's not the issue. The GIMP folks are quite innocent here. The
primary problem was that on the Gutenprint side (I'm the project lead
for Gutenprint) we were taking excessively long to release our stable
version (5.0). I was hoping that we could hand over maintenance of
the Gutenprint-based plugin to the GIMP team, but since our release
was long-delayed we weren't able to make the releases line up. The
Gutenprint delay was, in my opinion, for the better -- we resolved
some important API issues late in the release cycle -- but it
prevented us from handing off the plugin in time for 2.2.
There were also issues with the Gutenprint-based plugin's user
interface -- it's admittedly no work of art.
Sven and I did have a disagreement over exactly which versions of the
GIMP and GTK to target compatibility at -- Sven urged us to drop
support for GIMP versions earlier than 2.2 to take advantage of newer
features, while I wanted to maintain compatibility back to 2.0. But
that was a subsidiary issue. Obviously, had we been able to hand over
the plugin to the GIMP team this would have been a non-issue.
There are quite obvious issues with running everything in the same
name space. Surely the best way to address this issue would be to
run a separate instance of the interpreter rather than put new
conditions on the scripts that breaks a number of the ones in the
registry and very likely at lot that are not. This would seem to be
a work around for a flaw in the way gimp handles this.
I'm a firm believer in maintaining back compatibility myself, but in
this case I think the tiny-fu approach is much better than trying to
maintain bug-for-bug compatibility. Any act of separating the
namespaces is sure to cause some breakage because some script or other
is going to implicitly rely on previous state, resulting in very
tricky problems to debug. Better to take this hit once -- and most of
the hit is on poorly-written scripts that will inevitably be hard to
maintain -- than to be dealing with a broken architecture forever.
Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net
"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
Gimp-developer mailing list