Hi,
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why wouldn't that be the case any longer? It would only be packaged
in a separate source tree. Of course every GIMP installation would
include it.
How would you enfore the dependency? I don't understand how
removing script-fu from the source
Sven Neumann wrote:
I am not going to allow the source tree
to be clobbered with more stuff simply because we are too lazy to add
some simple notes to our web-site and FTP server. In the long run we
will want to split GIMP into even more packages.
Dave Neary wrote:
On another note, I'm not
Cathy Irwin writes:
Can anybody point me to some documentation that explain
the differences between the various drawables comprehensively?
At a conceptual level, the difference is very simple: A layer is a
visible part of an image. A channel is not: it is a grayscale
drawable that acts to
Hi,
William Skaggs wrote:
Dave Neary wrote:
Splitting
stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no
image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum number of brushes,
patterns and gradients doesn't seem
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Sven Neumann wrote:
snip
to be clobbered with more stuff simply because we are too lazy to add
some simple notes to our web-site and FTP server. In the long run we
will want to split GIMP into even more packages.
Slimming down the core by moving things out to other
On another note, I'm not sure this is a desirable goal. splitting
stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
that does seem like a valid risk to consider
goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no
image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum
Kevin Cozens wrote:
Replacing Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu could help push Tiny-Fu along a bit
(ie. with translations) if it isn't fully ready yet by exposing it to
more users but what is in the best interest of GIMP and its users?
I'm actually quite sympathetic, but it doesn't seem to me that
Hi,
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If that's the case, we're working towards needing a jhbuild or a
garnome for the GIMP, which just doesn't seem right - we're a
desktop application, not a suite of developer libraries and
desktop applications. We have one set of developers, not
Hi Sven
Sven Neumann wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with needing a jhbuild type of script to ease
compilation (not that I have ever felt the need to use jhbuild). GIMP
is not a desktop application. It is (or should become if it isn't yet)
an image manipulation suite. We have several sets of
hello,
long ago when i had a job and a home and friends who were gimp
developers i had an idea of a plug-in building environment.
in the time that this environment was designed, i lost all of those
things previously listed. the environment i helped to design is now
being used successfully at
more,
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 06:02:16PM -0700, Carol Spears wrote:
my experience with gimp is different than dave neary is talking about.
he is saying that if you dont get everything at one time, you will not
get it. when i first started to use gimp, it was so much fun to go
online and
11 matches
Mail list logo
