Re: [Gimp-developer] Which Gimp
Robin Rowe wrote: Are the FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX and OS/2 efforts truly internal to GIMP, > treated more like a cousin as with GimpWin, or totally independent efforts > like MacGimp and Film Gimp? > > I only find Linux, Solaris, and Windows binaries on ftp.gimp.org. Where on > the GIMP Web site is the documenation for Solaris, FreeBSD, Mac, IRIX, and > OS/2? > Correct on limited flavors of binaries. We are inclined to be source distributors, and leave the making of more specialized binary distributions to folks who know how to make them. For example, the freeware volunteers at SGI build gimp packages from sources originating from the same gnome repository the gimp developers here support, but employ the SGI software packager, and these install fairly effortlessly on the various SGI's I have. They are current to Gimp 1.2.3 with a package dated Jul-01-2002. http://freeware.sgi.com/index-by-alpha.html It would be nice if we tell people to where they may find more exotic binaries, such as for SGI, and give such folks a few thank-you's every now and then. Mea culpa. Hopefully this note will correct some of that. Be good, be well Garry ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
On 16 Dec 2002 12:33:39 +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RaphaXl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This is wrong. The plan was that Film Gimp and GIMP would merge > > around version 2.0 (you can check the gimp-dev mailing list archives > > from 2000 for some statements about that). This did not mean that any > > project would cease to exist, but rather that one tool (or at least a > > common codebase) would support the features that are necessary for > > both projects. > > actually there was no plan to merge the two projects. Instead the idea > was to provide a framework for image manipulation that fits the needs > of both still image and movie editors. [...] Well, this is more or less what I meant when I wrote the statements above. I knew that the old Gimp16 (Film Gimp) core would not be merged into the current GIMP because the work had already started on GEGL. The "merge" that I had in mind would have involved the migration of the Film Gimp frame manager and film-specific plug-ins to the new GIMP core based on GEGL. And as I wrote above, this did not mean that any project would cease to exist. But as I have already explained in a previous message, the exact plans for Film Gimp and GEGL were not discussed on the mailing list. They were mentioned by non-developers, but not by those working on GEGL and Film Gimp (except for the mentions on the film.gimp.org home page in 2000). So I would have to check with Calvin Williamson or Caroline Dahllof and ask them what they had in mind for Film Gimp and the film-specific code and plug-ins when they started working on GEGL. But I doubt that they intended to drop all film-specific stuff once GEGL and GIMP 2.x would be ready, so they probably planned some kind of merge later. > This idea is however very different from the approach taken by the > current Film GIMP developers which seem to prefer to work on a > stone-old code base. In the first message that I posted to the filmgimp mailing list, I saw a great opportunity for Film Gimp to get closer to the current code base when I noticed that one of the top goals for Film Gimp was "Bring the codebase up from 1.0.4 to rendezvous with Gimp 1.2.3". I suggested to aim for 1.3.x instead of 1.2.3, because 1.2.3 is already a bit old and 1.3.x has a much cleaner code (more object-oriented, cleaner separation between user inteface and core, etc.) and has better support for multiple platforms thanks to the new GTK 2.0. Unfortunately, the result of this proposal and the discussion that followed was that the goal of bringing Film Gimp closer to GIMP was removed from the Film Gimp home page and some rather negative statements about the GIMP were posted on the public web site and on the mailing lists. This is exactly the opposite of what I was hoping for and I feel rather bad about this although I do not know how this mess could have been avoided. I am still hoping, though... There would be so much to gain for the Film Gimp users and developers by porting it to GTK+ 2.0 and aligning its core to GIMP 1.3.x or by aiming directly for GEGL and GIMP 2.x. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
Hi, RaphaXl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is wrong. The plan was that Film Gimp and GIMP would merge > around version 2.0 (you can check the gimp-dev mailing list archives > from 2000 for some statements about that). This did not mean that any > project would cease to exist, but rather that one tool (or at least a > common codebase) would support the features that are necessary for > both projects. actually there was no plan to merge the two projects. Instead the idea was to provide a framework for image manipulation that fits the needs of both still image and movie editors. The basis for this framework is supposed to be GEGL and the Pupus rendering pipeline. A rich set of widgets to build a user interface from should be provided as well as a plug-in architecture and other useful things. Several applications could be built on top of this architecture. Perhaps there would be one large customizable GIMP application, but I can imagine that some people might prefer to create a more specialized user interface and call it Film GIMP, Video GIMP or Icon GIMP. There's nothing wrong with having different applications for different needs. This idea is however very different from the approach taken by the current Film GIMP developers which seem to prefer to work on a stone-old code base. I see a lot of effort wasted here and will continue to discourage people to join this effort. The Film GIMP developers shouldn't take this as a personal offense; it's their choice and I will certainly not dictate what other people should do. It's just my very own personal opinion that we could be so much further towards GIMP-2.0 if more people would share this vision. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [FilmGimp] Which Gimp
Hi, Patrick McFarland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Second, I would like to ask when a either a GEGL enabled Gimp will > be released, or a version of either Gimp with spfp/channel support > _or_ Film Gimp with a working xcf plugin will be avalible. when it is ready. Sorry, we never give any time scales for releases. In this particular case, it migth take a while longer since we haven't even started to work on GEGL integration and are currently trying to push development towards the end of the 1.4 development cycle. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] ANNOUNCE: GIMP 1.2.4-pre2
There is a testing prelease up for GIMP 1.2.4: ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v1.2/testing/ Please give it a whirl, and report any problems you might have to bugzilla. You'll need GTK 1.2.8 or any later GTK 1.2. This is only a prerelease, it should *not* be included in any larger software distribution. If all goes well, 1.2.4 will be out the door soon. -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
