On Monday 12 April 2004 10:31 am, Sven Neumann wrote:
> 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.
Able Typesetters and Indexers
Gimp-user mailing list