Hi,
On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:01 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote:
No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. At least with GEGL disabled,
There's no performance difference I know of between 2.6 and 2.7.
Ok, thanks.
In truth I haven't run 2.6 very much on my slow low-memory PIII laptop,
and 2.7 not at
Rob Antonishen wrote:
I've decided to try my hand at compiling gimp from source so I can
look at possible development...
can anyone suggest the shortest path from a blank
hard drive to a working gimp develpment environment?
Hi and welcome!
Here are my recommendations:
* Use a distro
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 18:57 +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:
* Use a distro which has packages for reasonably new versions of the
libraries GIMP depend on. Ubuntu 8.10 should work just fine.
* Don't install any dependencies you need to build yourself (typically
babl and GEGL) into
Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 18:57 +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:
* Build unoptimized, debbugable versions of GLib and GTK+ so that you
can debug seamlessly through the GIMP/GTK+/GEGL/GLib/babl stack.
There's no need to do that. You can simply install the debug
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 20:25 +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Unless I am mistaken these libraries have been compiled with
optimization enabled. Debugging code compiled with optimization doesn't
really work out, there's too much jumping-around going on.
This might be true in theory. But I
Rob Antonishen writes:
I have an older PIII notebook I'm willing to blow away and use just
for this purpose ... can anyone suggest the shortest path from a blank
hard drive to a working gimp develpment environment?
Sven Neumann writes:
It doesn't hurt to put babl and GEGL into /usr/local.
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 22:39 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote:
Unfortunately you may also have performance issues with GIMP 2.7
on a machine like that.
Are you implying that GIMP trunk is in any way slower than GIMP 2.6
(without enabling the GEGL projection, of course)? If you can show that
this
