Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
Hi, would somebody cry and whine if I check this in: http://sven.gimp.org/files/lc_new_icons.png IMHO a little facelift can't hurt and the anchor does fit better with the Gnome icons. Salut, Sven
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > would somebody cry and whine if I check this in: > > http://sven.gimp.org/files/lc_new_icons.png > > IMHO a little facelift can't hurt and the anchor does fit better with > the Gnome icons. I am not sure. Gimp is a drawing application and thus colors are important part of the work being done. I kinda like the fact that the icons in the gui are not colored. I dont know, what do others think? Most of the icons in Freehand and Photoshop are B/W too.. I dont know if it is good to mix color icons in _gimp_.. I know we have some in the prefs dialog which I checked in, but I am not sure if we want to have a color-iconified toolbar? Since that needs to be done too if we want to be consistent.. Thoughts? Tig .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 04:05:08PM +0300, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > would somebody cry and whine if I check this in: > > http://sven.gimp.org/files/lc_new_icons.png > > IMHO a little facelift can't hurt and the anchor does fit better with > the Gnome icons. I would whine a bit. I think they're ugly in that context, and the simple B&W icons were nicer to look at and simpler. Zach -- Zachary Beane [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP mail welcome. http://www.xach.com/pgpkey.txt
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
>IMHO a little facelift can't hurt and the anchor does fit better with >the Gnome icons. They look nice, but you should change all the Gimp icons then, so GUI is consistent. Other graphics apps still use B&W only, BTW, and nobody complains. I guess been able to select which kind of icons is a good solution, and not difficult to code, I hope... oooh, no! I see it now! gimp.themes.org. ;] GSR
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: > >IMHO a little facelift can't hurt and the anchor does fit better with > >the Gnome icons. > > They look nice, but you should change all the Gimp icons then, so GUI is > consistent. Other graphics apps still use B&W only, BTW, and nobody > complains. Well, FDP uses rather vivid colors and pictures to describe their tools. I don't think it adds to the usability, but gives a nice first impression. However, the gnome icons do neither IMHO. The anchor does look slightly better, but replacing all icons to fit with the anchor seems a bit silly. .02 Seth (p.s. I don't care, I know how to replace pixmaps)
fresh cvs broken?
After a fresh checkout of gimp, I have no: ./install-sh ./mkinstalldirs ./missing docs/texinfo.tex ./ABOUT-NLS These errors pop up when autogen.sh runs automake. -- -lsm
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
Hi, Uh, Gimp users/developers are so conservative ... > I am not sure. Gimp is a drawing application and thus colors are important > part of the work being done. I kinda like the fact that the icons in the > gui are not colored. I dont know, what do others think? It wasn't the lack of colors that made me propose this change. It was the fact that the anchor and the trashcan we currently use do not fit at all with the other icons. Same applies for the Zoom_In and Zoom_out icons used in the Palette dialog. They do match however with the Gnome icons. So either we come up with a new set of icons, use the Gnome ones or we change the trashcan, the anchor and the zoom icons to simpler ones that match the rest. > Most of the icons in Freehand and Photoshop are B/W too.. I dont know if > it is good to mix color icons in _gimp_.. I know we have some in the prefs > dialog which I checked in, but I am not sure if we want to have a > color-iconified toolbar? Since that needs to be done too if we want to be > consistent.. I don't think the toolbox icons would have to be colored too, even if we use colored icons in other dialogs. Salut, Sven
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > Uh, Gimp users/developers are so conservative ... > > > I am not sure. Gimp is a drawing application and thus colors are important > > part of the work being done. I kinda like the fact that the icons in the > > gui are not colored. I dont know, what do others think? > > It wasn't the lack of colors that made me propose this change. It was the > fact that the anchor and the trashcan we currently use do not fit at all > with the other icons. Same applies for the Zoom_In and Zoom_out icons used > in the Palette dialog. They do match however with the Gnome icons. > > So either we come up with a new set of icons, use the Gnome ones or we > change the trashcan, the anchor and the zoom icons to simpler ones that > match the rest. I kinda started reworking the icons and did the anchor and the trashcan, maybe that is the reason they look like gnome icons :) My intention is to re-work the dialog icons a bit too to make them more 3D looking, but I personally prefer using a grayscale palette for that. I could work on the arrow icons next in near future- I will also make the anchor smaller since it is too big compared to the rest of the icons. > > > Most of the icons in Freehand and Photoshop are B/W too.. I dont know if > > it is good to mix color icons in _gimp_.. I know we have some in the prefs > > dialog which I checked in, but I am not sure if we want to have a > > color-iconified toolbar? Since that needs to be done too if we want to be > > consistent.. > > I don't think the toolbox icons would have to be colored too, even if we > use colored icons in other dialogs. Yep Tig .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: print many open windows
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 03:01:42AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have a gimp perl process that opens a large number > of windows. > > Is there a way to send an instruction to print all > open windows? Do you mean "print" = "print on paper" (in which case I'd try file_print on all images), or do you want a way to enumerate all open windows (i.e. displays?), which does not exist yet ;( -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: Plugins
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:55:57AM -0400, "Shawn P. Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Of course, a simple gimptool wrapper plus some archiving database (the > > registry!) might suffice. > > > > It doesn't seem as if Gimp development has the critical mass (read: > sheer number of module developers) that Perl has. Well, I'd say installing one hundred plug-ins via gimptool, Makefile tweaking and worse has the critical mass to require something like cpan to install modules. > expansion/tweaking of the registry would suffice for now, but perhaps we > should be thinking of the NG Plug-in Registry, which should probably be > modelled on CTAN/CPAN. I'm fine with the current _storage_ model (files in the registry), I'm looking for an easy way to install additional plugins. However, what we should think of in _any_ case is a revision of a "what is a plug-in" on the registry. I'd say either: - a single .c file (with absolutely NO portability requirements whatsoever), [deprecated ;)] - a .tar.gz, which includes source, a Makefile.am and configure.in. If either of these is missing, some standard way to regenerate these (i.e. write a standard configure.in and Makefile.am for that case). This allows us to package .po files &similar to the plug-in. - a xxx-architecture.tar.gz (or .zip), containing a precompiled version for a specific os (e.g. somethine like redhat-6-x86, aix-4.1, suse-6.2-axp etc..) that would allow us to support the most common targets with ~99% success rate without user intervention. (we could copy CPAN's proposed standard for binary modules here) Having a wrapper (like the cpan shell) would also allow us to retro-fit extensions like better i18n for plug-ins (like storing and merging po files on installation) independent of the module authors or users. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
> would somebody cry and whine if I check this in: > http://sven.gimp.org/files/lc_new_icons.png > IMHO a little facelift can't hurt and the anchor does fit better with > the Gnome icons. Very nice! It is nice to see that work is being done to make the GIMP integrate well with the rest of the GNOME desktop. Federico
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
Hello Well I know that all of us has a full load of work. I think Svens work is nice!! (I.e lets go for it). As long as he also makes the anchor icon which in it's present design sucks (no harm towards you Tigert but it is clearly not one of your best icons ;-). Cheeers Olof -- Olof Kylander Frozenriver Digital Design http://www.frozenriver.nu Consultant at Sigma nBiT Technical writer and coauthor of GUM (the Gimp User Manual) On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > Uh, Gimp users/developers are so conservative ... > > > I am not sure. Gimp is a drawing application and thus colors are important > > part of the work being done. I kinda like the fact that the icons in the > > gui are not colored. I dont know, what do others think? > > It wasn't the lack of colors that made me propose this change. It was the > fact that the anchor and the trashcan we currently use do not fit at all > with the other icons. Same applies for the Zoom_In and Zoom_out icons used > in the Palette dialog. They do match however with the Gnome icons. > > So either we come up with a new set of icons, use the Gnome ones or we > change the trashcan, the anchor and the zoom icons to simpler ones that > match the rest. > > > Most of the icons in Freehand and Photoshop are B/W too.. I dont know if > > it is good to mix color icons in _gimp_.. I know we have some in the prefs > > dialog which I checked in, but I am not sure if we want to have a > > color-iconified toolbar? Since that needs to be done too if we want to be > > consistent.. > > I don't think the toolbox icons would have to be colored too, even if we > use colored icons in other dialogs. > > > Salut, Sven > >
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Olof S Kylander wrote: > Hello > > Well I know that all of us has a full load of work. I think Svens work is > nice!! (I.e lets go for it). As long as he also makes the anchor icon > which in it's present design sucks (no harm towards you Tigert but it is > clearly not one of your best icons ;-). Heh, no problem. I think it is a cute anchor :) Tig > > Cheeers Olof > > -- > > Olof Kylander Frozenriver Digital Design http://www.frozenriver.nu > > Consultant at Sigma nBiT > > Technical writer and coauthor of GUM (the Gimp User Manual) > > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Sven Neumann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Uh, Gimp users/developers are so conservative ... > > > > > I am not sure. Gimp is a drawing application and thus colors are important > > > part of the work being done. I kinda like the fact that the icons in the > > > gui are not colored. I dont know, what do others think? > > > > It wasn't the lack of colors that made me propose this change. It was the > > fact that the anchor and the trashcan we currently use do not fit at all > > with the other icons. Same applies for the Zoom_In and Zoom_out icons used > > in the Palette dialog. They do match however with the Gnome icons. > > > > So either we come up with a new set of icons, use the Gnome ones or we > > change the trashcan, the anchor and the zoom icons to simpler ones that > > match the rest. > > > > > Most of the icons in Freehand and Photoshop are B/W too.. I dont know if > > > it is good to mix color icons in _gimp_.. I know we have some in the prefs > > > dialog which I checked in, but I am not sure if we want to have a > > > color-iconified toolbar? Since that needs to be done too if we want to be > > > consistent.. > > > > I don't think the toolbox icons would have to be colored too, even if we > > use colored icons in other dialogs. > > > > > > Salut, Sven > > > > > > .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 04:01:58PM -0400, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > Sven wrote: > > would somebody cry and whine if I check this in: > > http://sven.gimp.org/files/lc_new_icons.png IMHO a little > > facelift can't hurt and the anchor does fit better with the Gnome > > icons. > > Very nice! > > It is nice to see that work is being done to make the GIMP integrate > well with the rest of the GNOME desktop. I agree! Now if only GNOME CVS would compile for me :-) *sigh* that's what I get for living on the bleeding edge. I liked the idea of icon themes - you could make an E theme, a GTK+ theme, and a GIMP icon theme so that every part of your user experience would be "themed"! Tom -- --Tom Rathborne[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.aceldama.com/~tomr/ --"I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my life-style."
Re: Plugins
> installing this package, the user would customize the gimp for his special > needs by adding special functionality > For example this would like: > gimp-plugins-artistic (gimppressionist, mosaic, oilify, ...) > gimp-plugins-webdesign (imagemap, html, animoptimize, ...) > gimp-plugins-render-fractal (fractal-explorer, cml_explorer, ) > gimp-plugins-fileformats(fits, sunras, ...) > gimp-plugins-perl > (you get the point) This is just like the cpan bundle system, btw. I suggest we _really_ should look at a comparable database like cpan before starting our own hacks. > registry, mirror it and include a nice tool that allows users to download and > install plug-ins when the need arises. Of course this would have to be > possible from within a running gimp and since I'm not sure if this would work > at all, this is possibly only a solution for 2.0. That would require re-scanning the plug-ins, which is a viable thing, but also sounds like a new feature (i.e. a 2.0 feature). But if we drop that restriction, i.e. by requiring a restart and using a seperate tool (i.e. super-gimptool), the work to implement this shouldn't be that large. For example we could copy the cpan logic of downloading and unpacking the plug-ins portably. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: perl_eval_pv
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 08:27:12AM +0300, Mircea Damian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Suggestions? (I patched the source to use the above but I know this is not > right because it breaks 5.005_03 users) This is indeed the wrong fix, the perl headers are expected to have a define for that case. Since the devel-5.005_61 version of perl does indeed have that define, and that this has changed from the snapshot before, I guess the perl headers are not in sync with the binary. Since 5.005_61 is broken with respect to Carp.pm (and Gimp uses that module), I'd suggest to use a stable version of perl (and yes, 5.005_50 to 5.005_59 worked fine...) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: solution: helpbrowser don't like libc5
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 02:48:01PM +0100, Uwe Koloska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So you have to add -lgnomesupport to GTKXMHTML_LIBS behind -lgtkxmhtml. > -- or you have to upgrade to glibc2 or copy the function yourself from there ... Both ways are unaccaptable, unless gimp starts to require gnome ;( -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: perl_eval_pv
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 09:20:15PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 08:27:12AM +0300, Mircea Damian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > > > Suggestions? (I patched the source to use the above but I know this is not > > right because it breaks 5.005_03 users) > > This is indeed the wrong fix, the perl headers are expected to have a > define for that case. > > Since the devel-5.005_61 version of perl does indeed have that define, and > that this has changed from the snapshot before, I guess the perl headers > are not in sync with the binary. The perl that I have installed(compiled by me) perl_eval_pv is defined in embed.h under an #ifdef to eval_pv(there is also a comment about this renaming: #if !defined(PERL_CORE) && !defined(PERL_NOCOMPAT) && !defined(PERL_BINCOMPAT_5005) /* Compatibility for various misnamed functions. All functions in the API that begin with "perl_" (not "Perl_") take an explicit interpreter context pointer. The following are not like that, but since they had a "perl_" prefix in previous versions, we provide compatibility macros. */ For some reason I belive that one of those(PERL_CORE, PERL_NOCOMPAT, PERL_BINCOMPAT_5005) is defined so perl_eval_pv remains undefined. I'll try tonight to build gimp CVS again and I'll make some debugging on this. > > Since 5.005_61 is broken with respect to Carp.pm (and Gimp uses that > module), I'd suggest to use a stable version of perl (and yes, 5.005_50 to > 5.005_59 worked fine...) Just seen a few days ago 5.005_62 on CPAN. Does this version fixes the Carp.pm stuff? -- Mircea Damian E-mails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] WebPage: http://taz.mania.k.ro/~dmircea/
Re: Icons in L&C dialog (and elsewhere)
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 04:01:58PM -0400, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > > Sven wrote: > > > would somebody cry and whine if I check this in: > > > http://sven.gimp.org/files/lc_new_icons.png IMHO a little > > > facelift can't hurt and the anchor does fit better with the Gnome > > > icons. > > > > Very nice! > > > > It is nice to see that work is being done to make the GIMP integrate > > well with the rest of the GNOME desktop. > > I agree! Now if only GNOME CVS would compile for me :-) *sigh* that's > what I get for living on the bleeding edge. > > I liked the idea of icon themes - you could make an E theme, a GTK+ > theme, and a GIMP icon theme so that every part of your user > experience would be "themed"! Speaking of that, how hard would it be to make the toolbar buttons also use the .xpm format? Now the icons are in the header files.. it's pretty hard for a art.geek like me to change the icons or try different versions.. Also for 'T0olb4r ThemeZ' it would be neat if the pixmaps would be stored in separate files. Thoughts? Tig .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
