When installing Python from Python-2.4.1.msi,
the headers are not in C:/Python24/include/python24
but in C:/Python24/include.
This fixes that problem.
--- pythondev.m4.orig 2005-10-05 17:29:40.015625000 -0700
+++ pythondev.m42005-10-05 17:27:01.609375000 -0700
@@ -10,9 +10,9 @@
From: Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lode leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:48:10 +0300
lode leroy writes:
In fact, what happens is that when linking with ZLIB.DLL,
the exe expects ZLIB-1
lode leroy writes:
The thing is that for compiling gimp from cvs, you need quite some expertise
in the autotools, libtool, aclocal, pkg-config etc to fix those
not-100%-working-together- distributed binaries...
Would it be feasible to create a big zip-file that contains everything for
Tor Lillqvist wrote:
It would be possible, but wouldn't such a zipfile just create open up
the possibility for even more confusion when there would then be yet
another distribution of these libs?
Tor,
You're right. Alternative packages always open up the possibility
for more confusion
Von: lode leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lode leroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:48:10 +0300
lode leroy writes:
In fact, what happens is that when
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday, October 3, 2005, 16:49:59, lode leroy wrote:
So the missing dll's in question are a build-environment
issue, and not a gimp-compilation issue...
Just make sure you use the correct import libraries.
It is also possible to create them yourself, from the
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:04:42AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make
this easier, but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do
so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the
professional
On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 18:11:36, Michael Schumacher wrote:
It is also possible to create them yourself, from the DLL files. The MinGW
docs contain a section about this (using pexports and dlltool, IIRC).
Didn't you write instructions for this in the wiki?
this is so interesting. Win32 has succeeded in making linux expensive.
you are asking that the Win32 environment not work the way it was
designed to work -- at least i think this is what you are saying.
i am very impressed that it was able to make free software expensive,
this is a simply
yeah, i read something that seemed as if it was too expensive to use
free software and a sane build environment. i have been wrong before.
carol
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Hi,
Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to
make this easier, but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware
to do so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use
in the professional world. My guess is
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 09:58 am, Carol Spears wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:04:42AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make
this easier, but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do
so without destroying the
Lance wrote:
* A spare hard drive
* A reliable partition manager (instead of a drive)
* Perhaps an alternate computer entirely
Just to be a weenie, I'll mention live CDs like Knoppix.
Or even USB-bootable systems. (I got to play with one of those this past
weekend at a friend's workplace.
Hal V. Engel wrote:
If all you need is enough of a Linux installation to get GIMP
to build and to test GIMP then the amount of diskspace needed to do this is
fairly small and you can free up a partition on your existing hard drive(s)
to do this.
Good point. I thought of doing this myself,
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 02:28 pm, Lance Dockins wrote:
Hal V. Engel wrote:
If all you need is enough of a Linux installation to get GIMP
to build and to test GIMP then the amount of diskspace needed to do this
is fairly small and you can free up a partition on your existing hard
On 10/4/05, Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is so interesting. Win32 has succeeded in making linux expensive.
you are asking that the Win32 environment not work the way it was
designed to work -- at least i think this is what you are saying.
i am very impressed that it
On 10/4/05, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lode leroy writes:
The thing is that for compiling gimp from cvs, you need quite some
expertise
in the autotools, libtool, aclocal, pkg-config etc to fix those
not-100%-working-together- distributed binaries...
Would it be feasible
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 08:08:45PM -0400, michael chang wrote:
Just to note, live systems on optical media won't preserve data
between reboots without storing it somewhere, e.g. on a file or
partition (Knoppix does this with some scripts somewhere IIRC). I
don't know about USB systems.
Well,
On Wednesday 05 October 2005 01:50, Lance Dockins wrote:
* Time
* A spare hard drive
* A reliable partition manager (instead of a drive)
* Perhaps an alternate computer entirely
* Potential other hardware for those components that
Linux drivers don't function well
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 16:37, lode leroy wrote:
Would it be feasible to create a big zip-file that contains
everything for gimp for download?
If you call it GIMP-toaster, many people will instantly recognise its
purpose.
Cheers; Leon
--
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools;
On Wednesday 05 October 2005 03:11, Hal V. Engel wrote:
Windows and
Linux can live on the same machine with no problems. So you do not
have to destroy the Wind32 environment. Many of the folks on this
list, myself included, have both Linux and Windows running on the
machines they use on a
On Monday, October 3, 2005, 16:49:59, lode leroy wrote:
So the missing dll's in question are a build-environment
issue, and not a gimp-compilation issue...
Just make sure you use the correct import libraries.
--
Jernej Simoncic http://deepthought.ena.si/
You never catch on until after
lode leroy writes:
In fact, what happens is that when linking with ZLIB.DLL,
the exe expects ZLIB-1.DLL instead of ZLIB1.DLL. (or vice-versa).
The official zlib dll is called zlib1.dll. Any other name means it is
not official. Official as in directly from real maintainer of
zlib. As the
Hi,
Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was asking more generic questions because I was looking for more
generic answers. I just wanted to know if missing DLL's was a normal
scenario in Win32 environments. Since you clearly know that it's not,
you've jumped ahead of me to asking
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:56:12AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
Sven Neumann wrote:
And if you ask, please describe your problems in detail. I
have left my crystal ball at home today so I really can't figure out
what some missing key libraries at the end of the build are.
I was asking more
On 9/28/05, Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I'd like a little help or direction about compiling GIMP
in a Win32 environment with MinGW, MSys, and ActivePerl.
It's not GIMP, but I wrote a HOWTO a couple of days ago for building
my gtk+ app under mingw:
Thanks John. This should help tremendously. Just two other questions
then...
1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows AND is it even
necessary to build GIMP?
2) Where do I install/unzip the all the auto tools? Should I just unzip
them to a location in MinGW and use the export
Hi Lance,
On 9/28/05, Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows AND is it even
necessary to build GIMP?
Yes, I'm sure Python does build on win, but I've not tried. Some gimp
plugins use it, so you probably need to spend some time experimenting
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:56:12AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
What if someone considering the possibility of contributing to GIMP read
that post? They probably would think twice at that point for fear of
being publicly humiliated for asking a question. Don't get me wrong, I
greatly
Lance Dockins wrote:
1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows AND is it even
necessary to build GIMP?
Get it from http://www.python.org
It is not neccessary to build GIMP, but neccessary for the PyGimp
modules and thius Python support in GIMP.
2) Where do I install/unzip the all
On 9/28/05, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:56:12AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
do not count on the user base being only as you defined it here.
if you do not want sarcasm or even honest requests for good development
style, please post these questions on
Lance Dockins writes:
1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows
Yes. Personally I have so far not really been interested in Python and
haven't attempted to build the Python scripting support. But others
have it working.
AND is it even necessary to build GIMP?
No.
2) Where do I
Nathan Summers wrote:
On 9/28/05, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you do not want sarcasm or even honest requests for good development
style, please post these questions on either the gimp user list or the
gimp on windows user list.
There is no longer a gimp on windows mailing list,
There is no longer a gimp on windows mailing list,
Well, for a list that doesn't exist it is pretty active...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gimpwin-users/
I guess rockwalrus meant there is no *developer-oriented*
Windows-specific GIMP (or GTK+) list. That's true.
--tml
On 9/28/05, Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nathan Summers wrote:
There is no longer a gimp on windows mailing list,
Well, for a list that doesn't exist it is pretty active...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gimpwin-users/
That is not the list that no longer exists. :)
I compiled GIMP 2.3.4 from tarball the other day and I've noticed a few
things.
1) The last 2 times I've compiled GIMP, I've found my installation
missing some key libraries at the end of the build. Is this normal?
(Missing libraries differed each time) To fix it I pulled libraries
from
Hi,
Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I compiled GIMP 2.3.4 from tarball the other day and I've noticed a
few things.
1) The last 2 times I've compiled GIMP, I've found my installation
missing some key libraries at the end of the build. Is this
normal? (Missing libraries
It's easier on everybody if you just modify the splash screen to have a message to the effect of "PRERELEASE VERSION INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT TESTING ONLY" rather than forcing people to one day have to do extra work because of someone's arbitrary timeout policy.
The message could even tell where
michael chang wrote:
On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael chang wrote:
The problem is that when the timeout dies, then should be a new
version; if there isn't one, it's kinda silly to have to re-install
the same version to extend the timeout.
Reinstalling the
Hi,
Axel Wernicke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about writing it with large red letters on the splash screen - it
can't be skipped and is displayed long enough to get the message
through :)
Of course the splash screen can be skipped. AFAIK many distributons
configure GIMP to not show a
On 9/25/05, Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael chang wrote:
On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael chang wrote:
The problem is that when the timeout dies, then should be a new
version; if there isn't one, it's kinda silly to have to re-install
Hi,
Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard
timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example,
and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future.
What's all this fuss? There is absolutely no reason why
Axel Wernicke wrote:
Am 23.09.2005 um 23:43 schrieb Michael Schumacher:
Problem: how to keep each of the places distributing GIMP (some net
magazines, other random websites, users) from mistaking it as a new
stable release.
How about writing it with large red letters on the splash screen
On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
michael chang wrote:
Solution: Linux/POSIX emulation layer. Cygwin is usually used.
MinGW/MSYS is also workable, IIRC. I've never compiled GIMP on either,
though.
For GIMP, I'd say that MinGW is preferred - not that there shouldn't
Hi,
Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of
late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release. Does anyone know
what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release?
Whenever I get around to do it, which will hopefully
Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that
would be... mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so
compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux. If I
could figure out how to compile from CVS on Win32, I definitely would.
Of course, I'm
On 9/23/05, Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that
would be... mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so
compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux. If I
Solution: Linux/POSIX emulation layer.
Hi,
you can safely follow the instructions at
http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/HowToCompileGimp/MicrosoftWindows you just need to
modify the supplied CompileGimp.sh updating the lines listing GTK_PACKAGES
and MINGW_PACKAGES as there are more recent versions avaliable, mine are:
# Names of packages and
Ahhh... Thanks to all who've responded... I guess I'm getting lost at
what packages to download from CVS and in what directories to place
them... At present, I've already used Msys to compile GIMP 2.3.3 from a
tarball. Since I've never tried compiling from CVS, I wasn't sure IF I
would need
Hi,
Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that
would be... mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so
compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux. If I
could figure out how to compile from CVS on
michael chang wrote:
Solution: Linux/POSIX emulation layer. Cygwin is usually used.
MinGW/MSYS is also workable, IIRC. I've never compiled GIMP on either,
though.
For GIMP, I'd say that MinGW is preferred - not that there shouldn't any
problems with Cygwin, but anyone trying this might
51 matches
Mail list logo
