Re: 1.1.19-installation fails
Marc wrote on Son, 09 Apr 2000: >On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 12:50:57PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> It's a part of the gettext tools. On Linux you either get both or >> >> none. >> >> > As some people already have said, this is wrong. >> >> Please note that I spoke of Linux not of any OS in the world. > >Me, too: linux configurations that only have msgfmt (and lack msgmerge and >msgunfmt) _are_ quite common, at least according to the reports we got. > AFAI understand the reports: Some (all?) distributions distinguish between gettext-normal and gettext-devel. The fist one has no msgmerge but the second, because it's thought of as an development tool. But since configure doesn't test for both parts (normal and developer) it guesses wrong at the presence of the whole gettext. Uwe -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~koloska/ ---- right now the web page is in german only but this will change as time goes by ;-)
Re: 1.1.19-installation fails
On 9 Apr, Marc Lehmann wrote: > Distributing the .mo files means you need gnu gettext on your system > anyway, so I do not really see the point. You have to have gettext, indeed, but you don't have to have the tools! That's a big difference. gettext itself is a part of glibc2 and if you compile GIMP for libc5 it'll be autotically linked into the binaries, so if you don't want to compile GIMP you don't need gettext. >> Please note that I spoke of Linux not of any OS in the world. > Me, too: linux configurations that only have msgfmt (and lack msgmerge > and msgunfmt) _are_ quite common, at least according to the reports we > got. Just curious: which one? It's very hard to believe, sort of braindamage... >> You are so nice to me... :) > I mean it. I was told soo many wrong things from you (and others!) > about gettext that I wished there was somebody who knows gimp _and_ > gettext, which is not the case. Sorry if I told you something that ain't right. Would you please tell me WHAT of the information I gave you has been wrong to give me a change to correct my mind (maybe even other sosurces)? -- Servus, Daniel
Re: 1.1.19-installation fails
On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 12:50:57PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > a) is wrong, since msgmerge is a gno-only thing and b) is bad, since > > mo files definitely are not portable. > > Not distributing the .mo files with the GIMP would mean that every > one who wants to compile it her/himself has to have a working > set of gettext tools. Distributing the .mo files means you need gnu gettext on your system anyway, so I do not really see the point. Just checked, our irix has msgfmt and it's mo files are not compatible with the gnu version. (although it seems they have derived their msgfmt from the gnu gettext sources.. buuh) > >> It's a part of the gettext tools. On Linux you either get both or > >> none. > > > As some people already have said, this is wrong. > > Please note that I spoke of Linux not of any OS in the world. Me, too: linux configurations that only have msgfmt (and lack msgmerge and msgunfmt) _are_ quite common, at least according to the reports we got. > > I think it would not be the worst thing if we had somebody with > > working knowledge of i18n. As it seems, we do not not have such a > > person :( > > You are so nice to me... :) I mean it. I was told soo many wrong things from you (and others!) about gettext that I wished there was somebody who knows gimp _and_ gettext, which is not the case. No offence intended, it's just that I had to learn that the hard way :( -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: 1.1.19-installation fails
On 8 Apr, Marc Lehmann wrote: > Yes, I got the impression from all what I was told: > a) msgmerge is not checked for by gettext itself > b) binary .mo files are being distributed with the gimp > Since I was no gettext expert, I just ate it. But now we know better: > a) is wrong, since msgmerge is a gno-only thing and b) is bad, since > mo files definitely are not portable. Not distributing the .mo files with the GIMP would mean that every one who wants to compile it her/himself has to have a working set of gettext tools. Would be no problem for me, BTW... >> It's a part of the gettext tools. On Linux you either get both or >> none. > As some people already have said, this is wrong. I'm afraid I didn't get your point here; If you have the GNU gettext tools installed you'll have all of them, if not you'll have none. There is no inbetween. Please note that I spoke of Linux not of any OS in the world. Do the GNU gettext utils work for let's say Solaris, too? If yes, why not rely on them, if we do so on Linux, too? > I think it would not be the worst thing if we had somebody with > working knowledge of i18n. As it seems, we do not not have such a > person :( You are so nice to me... :) -- Servus, Daniel
subscribe develop@WernerOnline.de
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: JPEG correction (was Re: Gimp Wishes)
On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:24:53AM +0300, Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have no idea what would be a good way to implement this, or how the > user interface could look. Probably one would need to keep a bitmap of > dirty pixel blocks (or whetever they are called), and when saving, if I'd say for such a really jpeg-only thing, the best way would be to enhance the jpeg save mechanism to first parse the existing file. Seems doable as well. > the more important a pixel block is. Hmm, is this doable in the JPEG > format at all? Yes. But I doubt it would be "legal" (that is, even if legal I doubt decoders would survive reading it ;) > Of course, one could achieve something similar by > simply blurring the unimportant parts before saving. Probably with some kind of "jpeg-blur" that aims at reducing frequency components suited for jpeg... -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
