Re: [Gimp-developer] How's CVS-HEAD?

2002-02-07 Thread Luc NOVALES
Luc NOVALES wrote: > > essai sorry for this spam, I hope to change the address for an internal filtering test. Luc. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] How's CVS-HEAD?

2002-02-07 Thread Luc NOVALES
essai ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] How's CVS-HEAD?

2002-02-07 Thread Manish Singh
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 08:06:19PM +, Adam D. Moss wrote: > Sven Neumann wrote: > > > mct:~> gimp-1.3 > > > gimp-1.3: fatal error: Segmentation fault > > > gimp-1.3 (pid:9613): [E]xit, [H]alt, show [S]tack trace or [P]roceed: s > > > #0 0x40550924 in g_on_error_stack_trace (prg_name=0xb83

Re: [Gimp-developer] How's CVS-HEAD?

2002-02-07 Thread Adam D. Moss
Sven Neumann wrote: > > mct:~> gimp-1.3 > > gimp-1.3: fatal error: Segmentation fault > > gimp-1.3 (pid:9613): [E]xit, [H]alt, show [S]tack trace or [P]roceed: s > > #0 0x40550924 in g_on_error_stack_trace (prg_name=0xb833 > > "gimp-1.3") > > #1 0x4055083e in g_on_error_query (prg_name=0xbff

Re: [Gimp-developer] How's CVS-HEAD?

2002-02-06 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi Adam, "Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks. Well, 6 hours later I have gimp 1.3 built! Yay! > Naturally, it crashes on startup. Boo! After trying to > 'ok' the second page of the gimp user installation wizard > I get this: > mct:~> gimp-1.3 > gimp-1.3: fatal error: Segmenta

Re: [Gimp-developer] How's CVS-HEAD?

2002-02-06 Thread Adam D. Moss
Sven Neumann wrote: > yes, it should compile. As usual the files HACKING and INSTALL mention > the build requirements. In particular these are: [snip] Thanks. Well, 6 hours later I have gimp 1.3 built! Yay! Naturally, it crashes on startup. Boo! After trying to 'ok' the second page of the gim

Re: [Gimp-developer] How's CVS-HEAD?

2002-02-06 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, "Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it pretty much definitely compilable and runnable by > mortals right now (funtionality aside)? What additions > have there been to the list of **essential** build libs/components > since 1.2.x? yes, it should compile. As usual the files HACKI