Seth Burgess wrote:
> Way cool on someone doing gimp-perl work again! Sorry I've completely
> abandoned it, but I've got good reasons such as:
Congratulations on your latest "development project"! It is certainly of more
importance than gimp-perl. The only downside being it is a long term proje
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:26:34 +0100, Andrei Simion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If I show you a 20 lines script, then you'd have to generate the image
> maybe a million times to actually increase the swap. As Kevin said,
> there may be a leak in one of the method calls inside the script. And
> th
Hi,
This is what you said:
So you may have to free all tiles before the swap file
resizes itself to zero.
How can I free the tiles in the swap? That was the question.
If I show you a 20 lines script, then you'd have to generate the image
maybe a million times to actually increase the swap. A
Kevin Cozens wrote:
> I will open a bug report so this issue won't get lost.
Bug #525016 (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=525016)
--
Cheers!
Kevin.
http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"What are we going to do today, Borg?"
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 |"Same thing we always do, Pinku
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 15:34 -0400, Andrei Simion wrote:
> I read that the tiles in the files should be empty in order to allow the
> swap to resize itself. But how I can do that? Is there a method that
> should be called after deleting the image?
Sorry, but you obviously do not understand
Kevin Cozens wrote:
> Andrei Simion wrote:
>> We have installed the Gimp 2.4 and the swap file still grows. For
>> instance after generating 20,000 images, the swap file size is 2.5 GB.
>
> I will open a bug report so this issue won't get lost. What version of
> GIMP 2.4 did you install? You can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree there's not much point in having a complex script like 630 lines
> of proprietary code and reporting it as a GIMP bug. If there is an leakage
> issue here , that this rather extencive use is bringing to light, it
> certainly ought to be fixed but a simple te
Andrei Simion wrote:
> We have installed the Gimp 2.4 and the swap file still grows. For
> instance after generating 20,000 images, the swap file size is 2.5 GB.
I will open a bug report so this issue won't get lost. What version of GIMP
2.4 did you install? You can find the full version number
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
>
> The swap file only resizes itself when tiles at the end of the swap file
> are freed. So you may have to free all tiles before the swap file
> resizes itself to zero. If if doesn't do that, then your script leaks an
> image or a drawable somewhere (or it calls a functi
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:24:59 +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:11 -0400, Andrei Simion wrote:
>
>> I run Gimp 2.2 on a Red Hat machine. The Perl scripts delete the images
>> that are created by using gimp_image_delete. Even so, the swap file is
>> cr
From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:24:59 +0100
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:11 -0400, Andrei Simion wrote:
> I run Gimp 2.2 on a Red Hat machine. The Perl scripts delete the images
> that are created by using gimp_image_delete. Even so, the swap file is
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:11 -0400, Andrei Simion wrote:
> I run Gimp 2.2 on a Red Hat machine. The Perl scripts delete the images
> that are created by using gimp_image_delete. Even so, the swap file is
> created and it inflates significantly. For instance, after creating 250
> images its
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 14:20 -0400, Andrei Simion wrote:
> The script that is causing problems has 630 lines of code.
It would help a lot if you could reduce the script to the most basic
script that still shows the problem. Then we know better where to look
for an error.
Sven
Andrei Simion wrote:
> We have installed the Gimp 2.4 and the swap file still grows. For
> instance after generating 20,000 images, the swap file size is 2.5 GB.
If this is still happening in GIMP 2.4, a bug report should be opened against
the gimp-perl component. It would also be a place to att
Andrei Simion wrote:
> We have installed the Gimp 2.4 and the swap file still grows. For
> instance after generating 20,000 images, the swap file size is 2.5 GB.
>
> The script that is causing problems has 630 lines of code. Do you want
> me to copy-paste it here, in the body of the email?
Send
Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 09:28 -0400, Andrei Simion wrote:
>
>> When I reported this issue on Gimp 1.2, you said it wasn't maintained
>> any longer and to try version 2.2. I'll see if the upgrade can be done
>> to version 2.4.
>
> It took us years to get GIMP 2.4 out
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 09:28 -0400, Andrei Simion wrote:
> When I reported this issue on Gimp 1.2, you said it wasn't maintained
> any longer and to try version 2.2. I'll see if the upgrade can be done
> to version 2.4.
It took us years to get GIMP 2.4 out of the door. Obviously you guys ar
Andrei Simion wrote:
> If yes, I work for them and I saw that you modified some scripts there.
> We installed 2.2 version and I made sure the scripts properly generate
> the images we need.
I haven't met you. I was mainly dealing with Allan D., Chris C, and Trevor. I
had let them know that 2.2
Hi Sven,
When I reported this issue on Gimp 1.2, you said it wasn't maintained
any longer and to try version 2.2. I'll see if the upgrade can be done
to version 2.4.
Unfortunately I am not the one that decides which version to install.
There are issues with the dependencies I have been told.
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:11 -0400, Andrei Simion wrote:
> I run Gimp 2.2 on a Red Hat machine. The Perl scripts delete the images
> that are created by using gimp_image_delete. Even so, the swap file is
> created and it inflates significantly. For instance, after creating 250
> images its
Andrei Simion wrote:
> I run Gimp 2.2 on a Red Hat machine. The Perl scripts delete the images
> that are created by using gimp_image_delete. Even so, the swap file is
> created and it inflates significantly. For instance, after creating 250
> images its size is of 2.7 MB.
I have done some work
Andrei Simion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I run Gimp 2.2 on a Red Hat machine. The Perl scripts delete the images
> that are created by using gimp_image_delete. Even so, the swap file is
> created and it inflates significantly. For instance, after creating 250
> images its size is of 2.7 MB
Hi Stu,
The behavior you are seeing is what happens if no Perl Server is
running. The perl server is invoked automatically if you call a
script on the commandline; it makes its own instance of gimp, and
passes commandline parameters to get the perl server running. At the
completion of the script
Hi,
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I try to initialize gimp-perl server with Xvfb (as below)
Why would you use a virtual X server? GIMP 2.0 doesn't any longer need
an X server if started with the --no-interface command-line option.
You might even consider to use gimp-console which doesn
Hi,
"Jared Whiting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The fix included with Gimp 2.0.5 ("work around file-descriptor leak in
> Pango (#143542, #148997)") appears to have resolved most of the memory
> leak issues I was running into with my Gimp Perl scripts and the
> gimp_text_fontname function (thank
Hi,
"Jared Whiting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there the ability currently in Gimp Perl to set it up so that each
> script runs in its own context?
Very latest GIMP from CVS has a GimpContext API that allows plug-ins
and scripts to run in their own context. These are PDB calls so it
should
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:33:55PM -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i am going to spend some time at my moms early next week. this
> might be one of those cool occasions where i can have the perl
I got it working with tml's native build, linking msvcrt and cygwin.dll
into the same
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:47:37AM -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
get this message from gimp that if i am elite enough to use
threading, then i am elite enough to fix it.
;)
i think if i pin perl from woody, i am elite en
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 02:51:16PM -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is it worth building the gimp-perl module from cvs yet?
Depends on what you are needing it for.
The evrsion in CVS seems to be fully working, except that none
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:47:37AM -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> get this message from gimp that if i am elite enough to use
> threading, then i am elite enough to fix it.
;)
> i think if i pin perl from woody, i am elite enough to fix it.
The problem is that debian woody uses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 02:51:16PM -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is it worth building the gimp-perl module from cvs yet?
Depends on what you are needing it for.
The evrsion in CVS seems to be fully working, except that none
Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
On Wednesday 23 July 2003 1:49 am, Seth Burgess wrote:
Its still pretty bleeding edge. You'll need to get bleeding edge
perl modules (which ones are documented in the gimp-perl cvs) Some
stuff works, some doesn't. Its not looking likely I'll get a
chance to do bring ev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> writes:
> > is it worth building the gimp-perl module from cvs yet?
>
> Depends on what you are needing it for.
>
> The evrsion in CVS seems to be fully working, except that none of
> the examples that use their own Gtk+ interface have been converted
>
Hi,
Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> How is the parasite editor doing?
> I will be needing it soon - in 1.3.
A generic C based one is an enhancement request open in CVS, and is
up for grabs. The gimp-perl one will be available as soon as
gimp-perl is.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyo
fre 2003-02-28 klockan 18.28 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79751
>
> Oops, this is certainly not something you told me about ever.
The "bug activity" log for this report (available as a link from the
page) very clearly shows that [EMAIL PROTECTED] added
> 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 ke
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:07:30PM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:19:17PM +0100, "David Necas (Yeti)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > You need cookies to log in, so you generally need cookies to
> > change anything (what brower do you use? bugzilla works even
> > in
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
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:30:09PM +0100, Branko Collin wrote:
>
> I vaguely remember that Bugzilla needed JavaScript or Cookies or some
> other extra technology to be enabled before you could use it. It's
> not set-up very well.
Just another FUD example.
You don't need JS (though it may improve
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:35:26PM +0100, Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strange. I had no problem creating an account some time ago:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/createaccount.cgi
Well, I registered a long time ago (I think under a differrent URL). The
problem is:
> then you shoul
On 28 Feb 2003, at 18:35, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:19:01 +0100, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.)
> (Lehmann )> wrote: > > (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 > tri
Hi,
writes:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20052
>
> This bug report is rather outdated and supposedly fixed since MANY years.
Now closed at your request.
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35694
>
> Same issue here.
Same here.
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:19:01 +0100, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> wrote:
> > (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 got an account there, so it's rather useless
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:07:22PM +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 got an account ther
Hi,
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 got an account there, so it's rather useless for me).
it seems we suffer from the same problem: I've told you about
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
intent
Hi,
writes:
> Well, I must admit that I am not really keen on working on gimp-perl in
> gimp-cvs anymore, anyways. The continuous mobbing made the air somewhat
> bigheaded up there.
Marc, there has been no mobbing going on (despite your continous
ranting perhaps). There are two reasons for movi
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
> resu
On 10 Jan 2003, at 12:37, Joakim wrote:
> I have tried to find gimp-perl for win32 but I can't find it.
> The Gimp-Perl FAQ says that there is no port of gimp-perl for win32.
> Is the FAQ not updated or is it really true that their is no port? In
> the latter case, is anybody trying to do a port?
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 t
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> it seems that mandrake-8.0 comes with a broken gimp-perl, but I am not
> sure what is atcually the culript. the wrokaround (compiling/installing it
> yourself) has worked fine so far.
It seems that the whole Gimp package in Mandrake 8.0 behaves strang
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 06:44:05PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm attempting to use the Gimp-Perl interface with Gimp-Fu, my
> platforms are Mandrake 8.0 with the Gimp 1.2.1 installed from the
it seems that mandrake-8.0 comes with a broken gimp-perl, but I am not
sure what is atcually th
52 matches
Mail list logo
