On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Brian Richardson wrote:
well, I have things working, but it's a bit of a hack.
What I really want to do is launch Perl-Server, running as user nobody,
from my init scripts (I use the Perl-Server extensively in my CGI
development). So, I put together a setuid wrapper to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-07-25 at 1140.55 +0300):
but I don't see any way of detaching the gimp process from the
controlling terminal so that I can background it without terminating the
gimp. Any suggestions, or is this a feature which may be added at a
later date? ;)
With control
Michael Natterer wrote:
after some hours of torturing it with perl and some manual hacking,
i got gimp running on current CVS glib/gtk+.
...
(applying it means that if you want to hack or simply use gimp 1.3,
you will need glib, pango, atk and gtk+ HEAD from CVS too).
I few questions:
*
Adam D. Moss wrote:
Is GTK 1.3
(or GTK 1.9, or 2.0, or whatever the GTK HEAD is!)
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:57:50 +0100, Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* What are pango and atk, and why do we suddenly require them (if
indeed we do)?
* Are there compelling advantages to using CVS-GTK which outweigh the
cons of forcing developers and users to upgrade? Is GTK 1.3 not
Hi,
answering both mails in one...
Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:57:50 +0100, Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* What are pango and atk, and why do we suddenly require them (if
indeed we do)?
Pango is the font layout and rendering system used by gtk+.
Michael Natterer wrote:
And BTW, GIMP 1.4 will be released _after_ Gtk 2.0 is released in a
stable version (which will be in not too distant future).
I assumed nothing less.
IMHO the pro's outweigh the con's by far, as it's simply not
possible without grand hacks to write an internal object
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:43:51PM -0500, Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have to use a development version at least pick a fixed point
in development and use that. Otherwise you're coding to not one, but
two moving targets: your own code PLUS the moving code in the library
you
Hi,
Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why should we expect the GTK+ developers to keep their HEAD revision
compilable at every moment? That is a completely unreasonable
expectation in the first place. If I were a GTK+ developer I would be
asking that you NOT do what you're proposing
Kelly Martin wrote:
[snip]
If GTK stable release (1.2) is not acceptable for further development
in the GIMP (which it probably is not), I would strongly urge picking
a relatively stable snapshot of GTK+ current development (possibly,
but not necessarily HEAD today) and use that. We might
On 26 Jul 2001 00:17:03 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
you are obviously not well informed about the current state of
GTK+-2.0.
No, I don't _care_ about the current state of the development of an
unreleased package. We should not be using unreleased code.
Why can't we just use
Hi,
Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why can't we just use 1.3.6? That's a frozen release that should be
reasonably close to the eventual 2.0.0 release.
who said, we couldn't do this? I do know that the current CVS HEAD works
and has some smaller improvements but that could of course
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:40:41PM -0500, Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should we expect the GTK+ developers to keep their HEAD revision
compilable at every moment?
because that's what they do, what gimp does, what every other project
does. if the head revision isn't compilable
13 matches
Mail list logo
