On Monday 12 April 2004 10:31 am, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Now I could of course scan to an pnm or png image > > instead of Postscript. (I could still save as > > Postscript from Gimp.) Which would be preferable for > > input to Gimp, pnm or png? > > PNG would be very well suited and I really don't > understand why you used PS in the first place. > > > (In earlier Gimps I could of course scan directly from > > Xsane into Gimp but this option disappeared with Gimp > > 1.3/2.0 and an early reappearance seems unlikely. ) > > Now I am slowly starting to become angry. Why do you > spread such misinformation? You are on this list for a > while now and you should know that XSane works with GIMP > 2.0 after a few trivial modifications. If the XSane > maintainer is really unwilling to do a release of XSane > that works with GIMP 2.0, then it would be just a matter > of asking me or any other GIMP developer to provide a > patch for it.
OK, please don't be angry. I raised this issue before, was referred to the Xsane maintainer, and got a discouraging reply from him. He had two patches in hand, one short and one longer, and didn't seem to be in a hurry to implement either one. If you have a patch that will solve the problem I would be happy to have it. -- John Culleton Able Typesetters and Indexers http://wexfordpress.com _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
