On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, "wolfgang hofer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody know what's wrong with
GIMP mailing list Archives ?
The gimp-devel Archive does not update
since weeks.
The address of the mailing list has changed, and it is likely that
some archive sites have not updated their
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Johannes Zellner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just compiled gimp from the CVS sources. Here are just two remarks:
1) Some of the Tool buttons are missing, is this intended ?
Yes. As announced on GIMP News (http://www.xach.com/gimp/news/) by
Zach Beane on the 15th of
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 10:56:32AM +0100, Austin Donnelly wrote:
I really don't see what's wrong with using a ruler. The CD idea is
cute, I have to agree.
There is a tiny problem. I can hold the ruler _near_ my screen but I
cannot
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21 Apr, Mike Kelly wrote:
A month ago I submitted two bug reports using Bugzilla. To date, they
remain in the UNCONFIRMED state. I've already patched my version of
GIMP as per bug 52383, so this doesn't really bother me except that
I am trying to help Daniel (and others, hopefully) by dealing with the bug
reports in bugzilla. This means confirming recently submitted bugs, replying
to some questions, asking for more information about incomplete bug reports,
and so on. But some of the bug reports are platform-specific and I
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Fabian Frédérick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I made a gallery maker plug-in + batch convertion ...
available from : http://www.dtlord.com/gallery
Somebody could tell me who to contact in order to put it in Gimp
distribution ?
You have done it already by posting your
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-05-20 at 0133.49 +0200):
Regarding the question to include it with core Gimp: As already
discussed here several times, the plan is to distribute less
plug-ins with the Gimp core
One of the things that has been mentioned several times while
discussing the distribution of plug-ins is the fact that the menus are
too crowded, and new users can easily get lost. The user interface is
indeed a significant problem, but I think that it should be handled
separately from the
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Christoph Rauch wrote:
[...]
The site-design neednt be redesigned from scratch. It may be enough to
polish it up and remove the Gimp-standard-script-look, which was copied
all over the web and today has a bit trashy touch. Definitely not a good
representation for the
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christoph Rauch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The current page displayed in lynx is suboptimal.
Well, at least it is not too bad. It is still looking better in lynx
than http://gug.sunsite.dk/ and some other gimp-related pages. ;-)
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote:
[...skipped nice joke...]
BTW, is there a Script-fu coding style? I have an idea in mind: clean
scripts a bit, and publish some rules, in the same way Gimp C code has
some rules (published?).
As far as I know, there is no
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Chetan Dhavse wrote:
[...]
[--enable-stack-trace {never|query|always} option is not available in
with gimp 1.1.04]
[...]
This is the strace -p -s o/p
#
read(0, , 4096) = 0
getpid()
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
David Monniaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The installation process is frightening:
1. The user is presented with a dialog box Welcome to GIMP that is half
full of legalese (NO GUARANTEE etc...).
actually our first version had an Accept button
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001, Marc Lehmann wrote:
it seems that mandrake-8.0 comes with a broken gimp-perl, but I am not
sure what is atcually the culript. the wrokaround (compiling/installing it
yourself) has worked fine so far.
It seems that the whole Gimp package in Mandrake 8.0 behaves
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi, Big, Fat Piggy Gimp Fans,
here's a very small patch that should fix our huge leak:
[...]
I don't consider this a clean solution but since it's a very small change,
we should be able to evaluate easily if it is a correct fix. A better fix
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
[about http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51164 ]
Yes, it's exactly the problem described in the bug-report. Gimp does
only attach a gimp-comment parasite to an image if it is created using
File-New. Other ways to create an image (Paste as
This is going to be a bit long, but here is a quick summary: I would
like to change the API to the load/save plug-ins by adding one extra
parameter. This parameter would be ignored by almost all current
plug-ins, but it would be useful for the file formats that can contain
multiple images. For
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001, Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO you'd be better off just using:
wad://home/raph/slimy.wad/p/alien.foo
This can be handled today in Gimp 1.2, see url.c
Non-interactive stuff would go exclusively through these URLs while the
interactive user would also
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
On 08 Aug 2001 16:10:31 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the problem is that # is not nestable. and the file system layer might
want to use it itself.
Hmm? No. Fragments are interpreted by the UserAgent.
Exactly. As I wrote in my previous
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14 Nov, Raphael Quinet wrote:
Hmmm... Of course, Bugzilla goes down just when I send a mail telling
everybody to use it. It looks like bugzilla.gnome.org is not the only
address affected, because www.gnome.org seems to be down as well
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally it got me lookign at bugzilla (a habit that has since
lapsed), and looking at the thread it seemed to lead to the resolution
of a fair few bugs. Do people think that doing this on a regular (say
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Dave Neary wrote:
By mailing the 10/15 most critical bugs on a monthly basis
to the list, I think people will be more likely to fix
them. I know that I was when Sven last posted his trawl
through outstanding bugs. It also has the benefit of
connecting the very
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Avi Bercovich wrote:
eh I work as a webdesigner in an Amsterdam based 'top tier' New
Media company. I do little in the way of print graphics thus this may be
a bit off-topic... But, all my work is done in GNU/Linux in GIMP, whilst
my co-workers use Macs and
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Laramie Leavitt wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Kelly Martin wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:48:33PM -0700, Laramie Leavitt wrote:
Is anyone actively working on GIMP 2?
Insofar as there is activity on GIMP 1.4, yes.
Is anyone working on it insofar as it relates to
For what it's worth, here is my opinion on the Tip of the Day messages
and their translations. In summary: keep it simple! I know that
being the one who introduced these tips in the Gimp does not grant me
any special priviledges (especially since I am not translating them)
but it looks like the
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
Daniel could you please take the discussion about UTF-8 and editors
somewhere else?! Then, if you want to propose something that is GIMP
related, please take your time to write up an elaborate proposal and
try to explain your ideas in a way that
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
[...]
In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
(in Copyright.txt).
(and I think it is very much BSD-like).
Right. And I was wrong in my previous comment: the
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Nick Lamb wrote:
Maybe I said this before, I can't remember, but the standard for trying
to describe generic metadata is Dublin Core. So before burning too much
midnight oil trying to organise metadata into neat categories at least
type Dublin Core into a search
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Dave Neary wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
Some time ago, I submitted two bug reports about this:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56443 (EXIF and metadata)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61499 (editing
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Rebecca J. Walter wrote:
Please everyone test this how to and see if it is lacking anything. It
is intended to be a beginner tutorial for compiling gimp 1.2 from CVS.
[...]
http://carol.gimp.org/gimp/howtos/cvs/cvs.html
Some parts of the tutorial are Linux-centric or
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Rebecca J. Walter wrote:
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 05:53, syngin wrote:
Would it not be a better idea to figure out the country of origin for
those attending and place the convention closest to the majority?
No.. because then we'd be in Germany again. Yosh wants to go
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002, Lutz Müller wrote:
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 15:04, Sven Neumann wrote:
if it solves our problems and works for non-JPEG images too, I don't
see any problem in adding such a dependency to gimp-1.3.
EXIF information is specific to JPEG files. Therefore, editing and
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
Raphael Quinet wrote:
[...] Note that it is important
that each individual item in the EXIF data is converted to a
separate GIMP parasite instead of importing the whole EXIF data in
one big chunk because [...]
I'm not sure I agree with you
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
Raphael wrote:
There are several reasons for using individual parasites for each
part of the EXIF data instead of using a single parasite including
the whole structure:
[snipped points]
Your points all have merit. My problem is now, and has
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002, Adam D. Moss wrote:
Raphael Quinet wrote:
The only thing that is missing is a standard list of names and types
for all parasites.
{docs|devel-docs}/parasites.txt
Err... Right. I knew that the file existed (I took a look at it the
last time we discussed
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
Parasite naming is non-standard. Anyone can create a parasite with any
name they want. [...]
Where *is* the list of parasites? There are only (as you point out)
about 10 persistent parasites, and the list isn't maintained anywhere.
One possible
On Tue, 06 Feb 2002, Adam D. Moss wrote:
Raphael Quinet wrote:
But it needs to be extended with all the names of the EXIF parasites.
So I will try to do that this week. Basically, I think that it would
be enough to use the name gimp-blah for each blah field of the
EXIF data
On Wed, 06 Feb 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:17:21PM +0100, Raphael Quinet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EXIF data and simply copy the descriptions given in the EXIF standard.
Some of the fields will have to be discarded (or set read-only
On Thu, 07 Feb 2002, Jon Winters wrote:
Went to an Adobe conference yesterday and they claim photoshop 6 has been
tested with images up to 8000 layers. They said it can probably handle
more but that is where they stopped testing. How many layers are we
supporting? (heh... memory is
I just had a look at Changelog for 1.2.3 and the list of bug reports
that have been fixed since 1.2.2 was released...
Here is a list of the significant changes between 1.2.2 and 1.2.3:
- Many improvements to the documentation and help pages.
- Updated translations.
- The binaries and manpages
While I was working on the list of parasites (which is more than one
week late, sorry), I started thinking about the changes to the PDB or
to the plug-in API that have been discussed on this list or submitted
to bugzilla.gnome.org. Here is a summary of the changes that I still
have in mind
On 2002-02-16, Sven Neumann wrote:
Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These options could be beneath buttons in a dialog that appears on
start-up instead of or along side the tool box.
Sure, they only save some scrolling in a menu, but I believe these
extra transactional
42 matches
Mail list logo
