Re: [Gimp-developer] writing customized GTK interfaces

2001-07-18 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 04:32:09AM +0530, Deepika Sikri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any help reg writing customized GTK interfaces in PERL for GIMP will be appreciated. Basically, it works by NOT using Gimp::Fu. If you don't need arguments then you can call the register function, which

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 07:43:12PM +0100, Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Can you 100% guarantee that Gtk+ HEAD builds and runs? If not, every time it's red we stall work on Gimp. That's no good. There is cvs, so knowledge about HEAD doesn't work, try last week's version will spread soon

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread pcg
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread pcg
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-26 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 11:18:58PM -0500, Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sufficiently large y. We bumped y as it became necessary. The HEAD revision was only occasionally required, and usually only for a short time until GTK+ released a new unstable version. so what? nobody requires

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-26 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 12:01:35PM +0200, Michael Natterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Porting GIMP to Gtk2 will need a substantial amount of time and hacking and if we'd start it _after_ GTK 2.0 is final, we will need another 12-24 months until it's stable. In addition, gimp is a very

Re: [Gimp-developer] RFC: support for multi-image files and API change for load/save plug-ins

2001-08-07 Thread pcg
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 05:28:15PM +0200, Raphael Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) Changes to the plug-in API The File-Open dialog would behave as follows: if the given path leads to a regular file, open it as usual (no extra path). If the path does A loong time ago I hacked the gimp to

Re: [Gimp-developer] RFC: support for multi-image files and API change for load/save plug-ins

2001-08-08 Thread pcg
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Raphael Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, using a special protocol in the URI will not work, because it then how about appendign a space and then attr=value pairs? spaces are not valid in uris. other options incldue { } or other characters not allowed

Re: [Gimp-developer] RFC: support for multi-image files and API change for load/save plug-ins

2001-08-08 Thread pcg
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:05:23PM +0200, Jens Lautenbacher [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. so, who is the user agent, gimp or the gimp? the file

Re: [Gimp-developer] RFC: support for multi-image files and API change for load/save plug-ins

2001-08-08 Thread pcg
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:22:44PM +0200, Raphael Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and then interpret it locally. As far as I know, there is nothing that prevents the URI from having one or several # in the fragment Except rfc2396, which specifically disallows this ;) The other characters

Re: [Gimp-developer] RFC: support for multi-image files and API change for load/save plug-ins

2001-08-08 Thread pcg
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 07:49:54PM +0200, Jens Lautenbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so, who is the user agent, gimp or the gimp? the file system layer is part of the gimp, for sure. Hello? The FS or a web or a ftp server is the Server conceptually. The UA (gimp) loads the whole Document

Re: [Gimp-developer] RFC: support for multi-image files and API change for load/save plug-ins

2001-08-08 Thread pcg
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 06:52:39PM +0100, Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That creates an equivalent problem to your original one. If you really want gimp-devel to believe that you routinely load remote WAD files from HTTP then I'm going to have to ask that they also believe that users

Re: [Gimp-developer] RFC: support for multi-image files and API change for load/save plug-ins

2001-08-08 Thread pcg
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:42:33AM +0200, Jens Lautenbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes of course, but where's the difference in our problem here? that the user agent is the gimp and might interpret fragment identifiers - at leats some underlying library might (and should) do that. my point is

[Gimp-developer] Thoughts on CMYK, and getting it without implementing it.

2001-11-27 Thread pcg
Sorry that it took so long, Simon ;) Anyways, I had some conversation with two graphics designers about CMYK problems and the Gimp at the Systems, and I think it might be worthwhile to read the following sometimes true observations. Remember, they are hearsay ;) 1. colour matching for photos

Re: [Gimp-developer] Thoughts on CMYK, and getting it without implementing it.

2001-11-29 Thread pcg
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:17:51AM -0800, Jay Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pretty strict definitions of these). If a photo doesn't exactly match the screen colours (which screen colours, anyways) this is often not a reason to not use gimp. If a logo colour can't be

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP Tip of the Day messages

2001-10-06 Thread pcg
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 07:33:28PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: have done it before. I can see at least one more advantages of using an external file: The tips don't stay in memory all the time. So we should probably go for it. (just a sidenote: if tips were compiled-in and

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP Tip of the Day messages

2001-10-06 Thread pcg
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 07:56:15PM +0200, Daniel Egger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To use gettext on has to have a file with C syntax; really??? to have a header file where the original messages are defined and then use gettext with that. which would be easy, nice and probably very small.

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP Tip of the Day messages

2001-10-07 Thread pcg
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 02:46:35PM +0200, Daniel Egger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: really??? I've heard there are Perl hacks as well. :) There are hacks for a lot of other languages/environments ;) The shortcoming of gettetx lies not int he parsing and input format... which would be easy,

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP Tip of the Day messages

2001-10-07 Thread pcg
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 03:30:06PM +0200, Daniel Egger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: our parser isn't homebrewn and is much better supported by glib than XML is. s-expressions are in my opinion easier to read and write for humans Knowing that you're an EMACS user I definitely think this

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP Tip of the Day messages

2001-10-07 Thread pcg
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 03:39:53AM +0200, Christian Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Native support for UTF-8 is uncommon and of course that is bad and Sorry? my mailer supports it (mutt) my editor supports it (vim), my terminal supports it (xterm), my irc-client supports it (epic), my browser(s)

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP Tip of the Day messages

2001-10-07 Thread pcg
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 05:00:27AM +0200, Christian Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My mailer doesn't (pine) pine doesn't even parse rfc822 addresses (like mine) - let's face it, pine is the worst mailer around with regards to features, standards compliance etc. Everybody is free to use it, but

Re: [Gimp-developer] Thoughts on CMYK, and getting it without implementing it.

2001-11-30 Thread pcg
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 03:38:10AM -0800, Jay Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [cmyk comversion] Where I work it is a very critical process. Any tips here? If gimp would support CMYK on-screen, how would the users work be different? Do users actually adjust CMYK themselves or do they just draw

Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-04 Thread pcg
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:06:56PM +0100, René [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There will be a new version of xcf eventually - so what? I'll use imagemagick today, and if no-one finds it worth the time implementing support for the new(er) version(s) I'm no worse off than if it hadn't been

Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-04 Thread pcg
ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is: If ImageMagick does not have a license, it's not legal to use it in a lot of countries. 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). --

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: your so called optimizations and why we don't like them

2001-12-04 Thread pcg
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:17:06PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: agains 0 for example than against negativeness and this part also plays a role when returning 0 or non-null instead of a negative value. Sorry, but before you continue with all this, ehrm, wrongness, would you please first

Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-04 Thread pcg
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:28:07AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time, btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work. Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant having

Re: [Gimp-developer] Current work

2001-12-04 Thread pcg
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 12:07:56AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not directly read XML in a plugin and apply some inline defined styles to it? Just an idea... it might be a good idea to keep the help pages in a format that can be read with standard browsers ?! This

Re: [Gimp-developer] EXIF and Gimp parasites (was: Current work)

2001-12-04 Thread pcg
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:36:50PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The possibility to save the data indepently of the image format in a separate file a good idea but doesn't speak against using parasites for metadata. In fact, it's trivial to implement another Load/Save-Plug-In

Re: [Gimp-developer] I18n of gimp tips

2001-10-07 Thread pcg
Am Son, 2001-10-07 um 18.09 schrieb 1002470948: ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? content xml:lang=de_DEWillkommen zu GIMP/content just a nitpick, that should have been de-DE etc. (I hope the next xml revision will allow the much better three-letter-iso-639 codes). -- -==-

Re: [Gimp-developer] Current work

2001-12-05 Thread pcg
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:44:02AM +0100, Michael Natterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This could be achieved by filtering xml = html (which is trivial) on install time. That's IMHO a very good idea. Simply XSLT the thing on install and never fiddle with HTML before... If help with XSLT is

Re: [Gimp-developer] EXIF information in JPEG files

2002-02-06 Thread pcg
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Parasite naming is non-standard. Anyone can create a parasite with any name they want. Untrue. Names beginning with gimp- are well-defined as belonging to the core. The gimp itself must, at one point, know how to

Re: [Gimp-developer] EXIF information in JPEG files

2002-02-06 Thread pcg
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:41:17PM +0100, Lutz Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be _really_ easy if you used the tag names for those parasites, i.e. gimp-exif-FillOrder or gimp-exif-SpectralSensitivity. while i am not strictly opposed, these names are very ugly. more important,

Re: [Gimp-developer] EXIF information in JPEG files

2002-02-07 Thread pcg
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 04:09:01PM +0100, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is untrue (or at least, true only by convention). There's a solid argument (your mail is horribly mis-formatted and very hard to read, btw) that all metadata is plug-in independant, and therefore belongs in

Re: [Gimp-developer] EXIF information in JPEG files

2002-02-07 Thread pcg
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:45:03PM +0100, Raphael Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: not be saved in a new file (unless it is reconstructed by the JPEG/EXIF plug-in) but it would be available after the image has been loaded. If it is valid after the image is modified, yes. Otherwise I think it

Re: [Gimp-developer] Wanted: pixel warrior drones

2002-03-04 Thread pcg
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 01:11:02PM -0500, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: do you mean something like this: http://www.goof.com/pcg/marc/gimp.html but i think the on demand images on this page were not rendered with there are no on-demand images on that page in the dynamic-html sense

Re: [Gimp-developer] Wanted: pixel warrior drones

2002-03-04 Thread pcg
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 01:55:37PM -0500, Tom Rathborne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but you may have to wait for Gimp-2.0 to lose the dependence on X and Gtk+. Hopefully Gimp-1.3 will make more functions available via the PDB, but it's already pretty complete. the big problem is indeed fonts

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP_HOST

2002-04-05 Thread pcg
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:49:13PM -0600, Todd Preuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone tell me how I would supply the GIMP_HOST environment for a gimp-perl server. perldoc Gimp::Net is what you are looking for. however: looks as if I need to set the auth in the GIMP_HOST. The

Re: [Gimp-developer] action files in GIMP?

2002-04-19 Thread pcg
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 02:18:41PM +0200, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For somebody who has never programmed in his/her life, a logical language is probably just as easy, if not easier. How many problems The scheme dialect used in gimp is neither a logical language, nor a real

Re: [Gimp-developer] action files in GIMP?

2002-04-24 Thread pcg
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 10:34:19PM +0300, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and Gtk is proven to be hard to port to that environment. ... but I still fear that porting gimp-perl might be quite a task. Why? I apart from trivial changes (gimp-perl has to parse the output of gimptool -n

Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu/Scheme---what is #f

2002-09-05 Thread pcg
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:40:14AM -0400, Roland Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't played with ImageMagick, so I'm not sure how good a job it does when rescaling. I've been using the GIMP because it's downsampled images look pretty good, at least as compared to using the When using

Re: [Gimp-developer] how to make Gimp::Perl script work remotely?

2002-09-26 Thread pcg
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 02:56:06PM +, forest monk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: through networking. Say, If i start a gimp perl server on a server machine, what should i do to be able to execute the script on a remote machine?I searched online resources and found that on server side, i need

Re: [Gimp-developer] how to make Gimp::Perl script work remotely?

2002-09-27 Thread pcg
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:01:57AM +, forest monk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks a lot for your reply. Tried what you suggested but still could not get it to work. Got some error message like Cannot locate Gimp.pm at @INC .. this actually looks as if gimp-perl wasn't installed at

Re: [Gimp-developer] how to make Gimp::Perl script work remotely?

2002-09-28 Thread pcg
On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 01:20:20AM +, forest monk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks again for your reply. I do appreciate it. Not sure about one thing though: Do I only need the perl and gimp-perl module installed on my client box and no more software (Gtk+, GIMP) required? In theory only

Re: [Gimp-developer] Perl Server

2002-10-05 Thread pcg
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:32:18PM -0400, Bowman, Terry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ). It will run as a cron job if I manually start perl server from gimp. I Try to run it with -v, it will most probably tell you that no X-Server was found. You need either a valid DISPLAY under cron (e.g. using

Re: [Gimp-developer] How to build a distribution

2002-10-09 Thread pcg
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:51:53PM +0200, Vegard Vesterheim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no separate gimp-perl package. At the moment it looks a lot as if gimp-1.4 will not have gimp-perl support. separate package from gimp itself, and that the packaging is using the ordinary Perl mechanism

[Gimp-developer] Dreamworks, Shrek, and the need for 16 Bit

2002-10-31 Thread pcg
Just FYI (I have no specific goal with this mail ;): I met some guy from Dreamworks (Shrek) at the LWE in Frankfurt, and he told me that their whole rendering infrastructure is 8 bit, including intermediate results (so the whole of Shrek was done at 8 bits, with a later dynamic adjustment of the

Re: Floats (was Re: [Gimp-developer] Dreamworks, etc.)

2002-11-02 Thread pcg
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 08:16:37AM +, Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This probably ought to be on our horizon too. Modern FPUs are very fast and RAM gets ever cheaper. And caches get slower... and RAM is _slow_. I don't say not to also support float, I just wanted to point out that

Re: [Gimp-developer] The Occasional Bug List

2002-11-07 Thread pcg
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 11:46:14AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However 280 open bugs (excluding enhancement requests) are still way Could somebody with sufficient priviledges allow me to edit bug reports again (account [EMAIL PROTECTED])? ;) -- -==-

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp perl Help

2002-11-09 Thread pcg
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:48:35PM +, Hakeem Ogunleye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: scripts run when i execute it form the command line but when i run it from a browser it doesn't work. the error_log shows: Have you tried ./scriptname -v? that will most likely tell you that gimp can't open the

Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem

2002-12-22 Thread pcg
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:29:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could get a good image, but not to the satisfaction of the customer. It appeared to be the way in which imagemagick scales the image as opposed to Do you have an example image? Really, either you hit a bug in imagemagick

Re: [Gimp-developer] A Free Software project of interest.

2002-12-23 Thread pcg
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 07:52:57PM +, Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The goal (I thought) was to keep the lowest levels (GEGL etc) of GIMP's back-end LGPL. I don't see any reason to do that. Well, if the developrs of GEGL decide to do that I'd be fine with it. The question is

Re: [Gimp-developer] perl-fu : cannot save image

2003-02-26 Thread pcg
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:38:42PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say the bug is in your script. But then you could argue that the bug is in gimp-perl since it's syntax defers from the one that is documented :-( I would prefer if people who could know it better would stop

Re: [Gimp-developer] perl-fu : cannot save image

2003-02-26 Thread pcg
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 07:53:31PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would prefer if people who could know it better would stop claiming such bullshit. The perl-syntax is well-documented, and even if you insist on using the rather idiotic PDB-syntax, it does work. sorry, I

Re: [Gimp-developer] perl-fu : cannot save image

2003-02-26 Thread pcg
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:24:13PM +0100, Valter Mazzola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm using mandrake 9.0 and gimp 1.2.3 , removed mail() in exit, but the saved logo is totally different than the gimp do interactively. Try to call flatten on the resulting image before saving ($image-flatten).

Re: [Gimp-developer] gimp-perl moved into its own CVS module

2003-02-26 Thread pcg
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 07:56:05PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: when I saw your mail, I remembered that I haven't yet told you that we finally moved gimp-perl out of the gimp HEAD branch into its own CVS module called gimp-perl. Hoepfully someone will find the time to resurrect

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: perl-fu : cannot save image

2003-02-28 Thread pcg
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:06:41AM -0500, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2003-02-28 at 0102.48 +0100, Marc A. Lehmann typed this: I really wonder what is going on here, but there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation going on... i miss the perl plug-ins in

Re: [Gimp-developer] perl-fu : cannot save image

2003-02-28 Thread pcg
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:53:59PM +0100, Raphal Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even if the problems were only due to the build/install process, I think that it would be appropriate to say that gimp-perl is broken. The result is that it is not possible for some users to use gimp-perl. And

Re: [Gimp-developer] gimp-perl moved into its own CVS module

2003-02-28 Thread pcg
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 11:12:57AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc, there has been no mobbing going on (despite your continous Just about every of your mails you wrote that has anything to do with gimp-perl contains some (usually little) amounts of FUD. It might not be

Re: [Gimp-developer] gimp-perl moved into its own CVS module

2003-02-28 Thread pcg
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:07:22PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, pcg( Marc)goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: (2) There are a couple of severe problems with the build that have I didn't know this (but I don't use the bugtracker, since despite a lot of tries I never

Re: [Gimp-developer] perl-fu : cannot save image

2003-02-28 Thread pcg
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:05:04PM +0100, Raphal Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't call this rethorics - if you do, you are measuring different things differently, which is not at all fair. this discussion on the developers' mailing list so I would expect that most subscribers care

Re: [Gimp-developer] gimp-perl moved into its own CVS module

2003-02-28 Thread pcg
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:30:35PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79751 I certainly did; I even added your email to the Cc: which should have caused bugzilla to send you an email about it. Hmm.. well, then it was as I said and I

[Gimp-developer] to rower@MovieEditor.com (unrachable e-mail address)

2003-02-28 Thread pcg
Sorry for this off-topic posting, but Robin Rowe actually is on this list and had a question. From: Robin Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] I tried to reply to your mail, but it seems you cannot receive e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SMTP error from remote mailer after end of data: host

Re: [Gimp-developer] gimp-perl moved into its own CVS module

2003-02-28 Thread pcg
It's OT, but you started about reality: I didn't start anything. A very important rule to follow on the 'net or anywhere else: do _NOT_ forward private mails to public forums. ;) bugzilla.gnome.org, then I can't understand why you bother to read any mail not signed by some trusted GnuPG key

Re: [Gimp-developer] How do I test my perl scripts?

2003-06-03 Thread pcg
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:20:39PM +0800, Kenny Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I try to run it by entering Gimp, and starting the Perl Server by going to Xtns-Perl-Server Nothing seems to come up at all, so I went ahead and typed ./whatever.pl the perl server only outputs some text on the

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Gimp Arrays in Perl

2003-06-04 Thread pcg
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:54:25AM +0300, Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gimp_pencil($layer, 4, @positions ); gimp_pencil($layer, 4, [EMAIL PROTECTED]); To add, arrays are always passed _into_ the gimp as references [...]. Functions returning a single array return a list, e.g. my

Re: [Gimp-developer] License question

2003-06-10 Thread pcg
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 02:19:00PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently came across http://www.ftgimp.com/, which seems to sell an enhanced version of the GIMP (called FT Gimp) for 19.95 to 29.95 USD. which is fine, of course, except that I don't see any enhancements ;) based on the

[Gimp-developer] there is hope for gimp-perl-1.3 (was:red-eye-removal)

2003-06-16 Thread pcg
http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/fmg-members/geoff/digicam/redeye Woaw, a PDL plug-in not written by me! Oh my god, I can't believe it happened ;) On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perl ported to gimp-1.3 and the plug-ins as well. One thing of

[Gimp-developer] Re: there is hope for gimp-perl-1.3

2003-06-16 Thread pcg
It seems that porting gimp-perl to 1.3 is about trivial, well, at least getting it to compile and run most scripts. The version in CVS compiles and runs, but the scripts using gtk fail (so better not install it or be prepared to skio a few plug-ins when running gimp-1.3). In any case, although

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: there is hope for gimp-perl-1.3

2003-06-16 Thread pcg
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:54:09PM +0200, Marc A. Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, I did it, too :() Ok, if you got gtk+ working, please send me what you did ;) OK, making it run (at night) with Gtk2 also wasn't difficult, but tooltips and lots of other things don't work yet (e.g. all

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: there is hope for gimp-perl-1.3 (was:red-eye-removal)

2003-06-17 Thread pcg
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:20:03PM -0400, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: anyone who can talk about their GIMP contribution in terms of months should only recieve my gratitude and awe. seriously. :) Ahem.. in some months, not for some months :() The actual contribution might be

[Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)

2003-06-17 Thread pcg
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:22:23PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So all we need is an even version number... All around GIMP, most notably with its toolkit GTK+, the 2.0 era has begun. Should we really go for 1.4? Well, all the agruments I see in favour of 2.0 are always of the

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber

2003-06-17 Thread pcg
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Raphal Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there any real numbers on this? Last time I checked the sites I'm administrating, the NS4 share was down to _0.25%_. Is really gimp.org that much higher up? Probably a bit higher, but not that much. I

Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)

2003-06-18 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:55:52AM +0100, Austin Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the text tool, I etxremely like the undo history.. but that is all nothing major). But the undo history is not a new 1.3 feature, it was introduced by me in one of the 1.1 testing series and has thus

Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)

2003-06-18 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, evereybody else has 2.0. Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at 2003 etc.. I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will have a hard time to explain why even it's major release numbers

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions

2003-06-18 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well-known as The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.. It is very hard to change such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either. Such widespread information? Try google with such harmless keywoards as

Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far

2003-06-18 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 07:20:13PM +0200, Hans Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sven, is it time to flame again ? Please, although I am easily at flaming, I do not intend to do it, nor was it my intent to put off Sven, who works _so_ much, nor is it useful to start a flamewar with sven, who

Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far

2003-06-18 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:35:51PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I told one or even two people involved in the computer magazine business about it when I tried to get some support for the conference this summer. What did you tell them, that gimp-2.0 will be released or

Re: [Gimp-developer] A new filter idea..

2003-06-19 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:05:25AM -0700, Bowie J. Poag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this the right forum to discuss new filter ideas? If so, I have one i'd like to share. Sure it is, even more so if you plan to implement it, hint, hint :) -- -==-

Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far

2003-06-19 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:47:42AM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: Marc, you may not need any marketing but I have been trying to raise funding for gimpcon since february. I do believe that we, the GIMP project, could need some more

[Gimp-developer] David Neary mail problems

2003-06-19 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 04:17:52PM +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just FYI, I get relay prohibited to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when replying to you. -- -==- | ==-- _ |

Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far

2003-06-19 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still disagree on that, people are eagerly waiting for 2.0 for the very features it should have. Unfortunately. Are they? I do. Others on this list do. It's up to you to make your opinion on that. I don't

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far

2003-06-19 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:03:50PM +0200, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you have to ask yourself: who am I selling to? Graphics artists? (off-topic philosophical rant, not meant as an answer to you!) Personally, I didn't write gimp-perl (the only major contribution of mine to gimp)

Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far

2003-06-19 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:14:30PM +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because My vote is for 1.x, or 2.0, if sven decides it on the grounds that we need it for marketing. The other arguments simply don't overweight the confusion I

Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far

2003-06-19 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:09:57PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, so replacing the approx. 8,000 lines of code in the base directory with GEGL would be considered a major feature. If we get all the other stuff we said would be in 2.0, yes. The fact that the other 230,000

Re: [Gimp-developer] [long] Suggestions + Patch, Redo (please dontflame), Part 1

2003-06-26 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:06:00PM +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, the two big platforms where the GIMP will be used in the future are GNOME and KDE. Both of those follow the HIG guideline of Ctrl-Shift-Z. On windows, the main alternative app (photoshop) uses the same

Re: [Gimp-developer] Suggestions + Patch, Redo - Part 1

2003-06-26 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 09:07:30AM -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of the first things I teach to one who is learning the GIMP is the dinamic shortcut allocation. Which has gone out of 1.3 (yes, you can enable it in the preferences, but people telling me that it probably

Re: [Gimp-developer] Suggestions + Patch, Redo - Part 1

2003-06-27 Thread pcg
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 04:07:29PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, there is no need to change this at all, I was just under the wrong impression that it was dangerous to enable them *at all*, and not dangerous to enable them because I often bump my head on the caps at

Re: [Gimp-developer] Suggestions + Patch, Redo - Part 1

2003-06-30 Thread pcg
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:12:49PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the preferences toggle doesn't solve it at all, why do you call it a solution? Toggling it on does not work, as Sven said, as then mnemonics and dynamic shortcuts will clash. Sorry, but I don't think

Re: [Gimp-developer] the user installer

2003-07-09 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:23:57AM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we should just drop a number of files in the user directory. Unlike the GNOME developers we don't expect our users to be stupid. We put a One need not be stupid to not understand the dialog, though. Even experienced

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: [CinePaint-dev] GIMP GBR format spec

2003-07-11 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:08:21PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in such an approach and I am sure that not many XML parsers will like CDATA blocks of several megabytes. _all_ xml parsers cope with cdata blocks of several megabytes. -- -==-

Re: [Gimp-developer] MMX in 1.3 tree

2003-07-11 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 01:17:49PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: __asm__ __volatile__ () while the new code in The GIMP seems to be using asm() I don't know this stuff good enough to know the difference, but I'd __keyword__-style keywords are always there, even if gcc

Re: [Gimp-developer] MMX in 1.3 tree

2003-07-11 Thread pcg
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:13:29PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there should be a % in the list of clobbered registers. yupp, there is no %mm1 register :) worse, I don't even think most versions of gcc know about MMX registers at versions 2.x (usually)

Re: [Gimp-developer] the user installer

2003-07-11 Thread pcg
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:48:08PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: users. The dialog is great and much better than a html help page for example, but it's presented at a time people will have no clue what it means. Perhaps we should show it on every startup then ? It's

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP GBR format spec

2003-07-11 Thread pcg
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 10:08:55AM -0400, Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A JAR is a special type of ZIP archive, which contains one or more data files along with an XML manifest about the contents. I've worked on a number of projects (both commercial and open) that have

Re: [Gimp-developer] Suggestions + Patch, Redo - Part 1

2003-06-27 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:02:41AM -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know how much it's dictated by gtk2, but it seens weird that the GIMP usability gets hurt for changes on The Gimp Toolkit. Woaw, that sounding like a great argument, but I still think that gtk+ deserves

Re: [Gimp-developer] Suggestions + Patch, Redo - Part 1

2003-06-27 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:21:10PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You obviously did not understand the reasoning behind this change. Obviusly not, since only you explained it so far, saying that it clashes with gtk+. With the use of mnemonics in 1.3 the chance to make such a

Re: [Gimp-developer] Suggestions + Patch, Redo - Part 1

2003-06-28 Thread pcg
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 12:20:26PM +0200, Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: reassigning a keybinding will remove the old assigment), or the reassignment shouldn't happen when it clashes (less preferable). The solution to the bug was the preference toggle. These two things just Since

Re: [Gimp-developer] Suggestions + Patch, Redo - Part 1

2003-06-29 Thread pcg
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 11:29:30AM +0200, Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you think of the 'dynamic shortcuts' preference as an alternative to shortcut editor you will probably see it's not much of a workaround. You activate it and are working in shortcut learning mode. You turn it

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP GBR format spec

2003-07-16 Thread pcg
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 10:16:28AM -0400, Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:38 AM 7/14/2003 -0400, Robert L Krawitz wrote: What happens if in the future someone writes a gimp-java interface (like gimp-perl)? Would there be any security issues there? No. I do not

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP GBR format spec

2003-07-16 Thread pcg
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 11:57:09PM -0400, Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the ar file format is much better established then jar, quick to access (unlike jar), and very very very much simpler. Excuse me?!?! JAR is used by every Java implementation in existence, and since

  1   2   3   >