Hi,
Same impression here. I can't remember that I installed Gnome on
my desktop. And although I use Gimp for a long time now I never got
the impression that I was working with Gnome.
Eeek, even if we we use gnome-libs you will not have to install Gnome
on your desktop. People should have
On 1 Feb, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
additional plug-ins. Some things, like translations, must be part
of the distribution currently.
This needs to be fixed. :)
Do you volunteer?
I don't understand translations at all. :)
What a pity... I'm currently trying to dissolve all these
On 1 Feb, Sven Neumann wrote:
You don't seem to be very familiar with gnome-libs, especially not
with the progress that was/is being made towards the next release.
Uhm, not quite except that I'm trying to compile it every three days...
gnome-print for printing (preview, native printer
On 31 Jan, Marc Lehmann wrote:
BTW: we need to
consult a ~/.gimp/po/ directory for translations as well at some point
in the future!
Bad luck, I don't know why you like to have a personal catalog
directory but with gettext you have either ... or ... and setting up
such a system which uses
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 13:19:03 +0100, Torsten Rahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Of course I read on the
Gnome-Office-site that Gimp would be part of Gnome-Office. Well I was
quite surprised to read that as I didn't see any discussions about
this topic here.
GNOME claims GIMP as part of GNOME because
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:45:22PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IMHO having two different UIs to perform the same task is a stupid idea.
For example, you want cutpaste under both desktops. And kde has cooked
their own incompatible clipboard system.
Why would people using KDE
XML as a save format for configureations and even for scripts. This would make
macro recording possible...
Macro recording and XML are two *completely* orthogonal things. Macro
recording gets possible by programming it, not by using a difefrent format
to save config files.
I wonder where
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 13:19:03 +0100, Torsten Rahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
GNOME claims GIMP as part of GNOME because GIMP is better than any of
the existing GNOME apps. They're trying to piggyback on our success.
Personally, I think this is
Hiho developers...
I discovered some name glitches in GIMP.
1. The "Settings" in the preferences Dialog wasn't in everything and is
useless nevertheless because a preferences dialog is supposed to
contain settings...
2. Some tools had a "Tool" in the options dialog and some not.
On 1 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote:
Macro recording and XML are two *completely* orthogonal things. Macro
recording gets possible by programming it, not by using a difefrent
format to save config files.
You could use XML for saving macros. Of course you could also use
scheme BUT: There are
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:15:17 -0600 (CST), Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
I agree that would be the best solution, but I'm afraid it's not that
easy. I've submitted quite a few very small portability patches
against ORBit from as far back as the 0.3.X days, and virtually every
one of my
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:09:14 +0100 (MET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) said:
This statement is ridiculous. They are not claiming that they wrote
the GIMP. They just state that it will be included as part of the
Gnome-Office suite.
Hi developers,
Having no real documentation of the sourcecode is really a burden
when searching for bugs. Do you agree that having a documentation
would be fine? I'd like to introduce a in-source-documentation
which an extractor program could use to make a TeX or HTML file of
it.
Using
On 1 Feb, Sven Neumann wrote:
This is supposed to be first class font-rendering and if it prooves to
be useful, I see no reason not to use it, even it has gnome printed
on it.
Well, if it really is first class rendering, then I'd like to see it
in GIMP I haven't yet seen this package,
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:11:13 -0500 (EST), Glyph Lefkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
No, and it's their right not to. If you believe this should be a
requirement, it should be part of the license. GIMP is a part of Red
Hat Linux, why shouldn't it be a part of the GNOME office suite?
If I recall
On 2 Feb, Sven Neumann wrote:
We have already brought up this issue lately and I think the
conclusion was that we try to add documentation for libgimp before
1.2. Most certainly we will use gtk-doc with comments embedded into
the source. Marc volunteered to write the necessary scripts to
On 1 Feb, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Well, we _do_ have gimp-perl available...
Uhm, yes...
With XML, we'd have to write _both_ loader and saver
There are fantastic parsers available, no need to write any of those.
-- with gimp-perl (or Perl-Fu, whatever name
you like best), we'll
Sorry 'bout this, but I really am stuck trying to get off this list!
-R.
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:09:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. The "Settings" in the preferences Dialog wasn't in everything and is
useless nevertheless because a preferences dialog is supposed to
contain settings...
Your:
"
CategoryNew File
"
Looks IMHO much worse
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:16:42PM +, "Steinar H. Gunderson"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could use XML for saving macros. Of course you could also use
scheme BUT: There are libraries e.g. libxml which allow very simple
loading and saving of XML files while we would possibly have to
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 02:58:29PM -0600, Tim Mooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In most cases, the response was along the lines of "your compiler is broken,
it builds and works fine for me".
Hey, that's exactly the same argument kde people used to use ;-
BTW, I enjoy this flamewar very much,
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 09:12:31PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
users want translated plug-ins! wether they come with the gimp or not.
Well, yes, but I guess they wouldn't want to translated them
themselves, so why personal i.e. with catalog in the home directory?
Because it's the
The function gimp-drawable-type-with-alpha wasn't
completely guarded. Calling it with a non-existent
drawable would cause a crash.
We force a crash in that place (by using a g_assert) since
something has gone wrong. With your patch we would return a
perfectly valid image_type and gimp would
The function gimp-drawable-type-with-alpha wasn't
completely guarded. Calling it with a non-existent
drawable would cause a crash.
The fact that you can feed gimp with a bad drawable through the PDB and
make it crash, is indeed a bug. I have looked into the code in
app/drawable_cmds.c and
Hi,
I'm Marti Maria, lcms author. I am glad my package is worth of your attention, so
I would like to clarify some points.
The library is under GNU Lesser license agreement, and it will remain under LGPL.
There are some sentences in the web page about you can do whatsever you want,
well
Thus spoke Robert L Krawitz
From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMHO having two different UIs to perform the same task is a stupid idea.
Actually, it's an eminently sensible idea. For KDE, having an image
editing program that follows the KDE UI guidelines and all the other
good
On 1 Feb, Martí María wrote:
So, any volunteers?
This piece of code is highly interesting but since this won't make
into GIMP before 1.2 because of the featurefreeze I really hope that
all GIMP developers will concentrate on the project until we released
the next stable version.
--
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 09:44:47AM -0700, Michael J. Hammel wrote:
But they wouldn't have to maintain anything if they just left the UI alone.
I'm with Sven on this one. Two UI's accomplishes little.
The point is not just KDE vs. GNOME, is it? Isn't BeOS doing their own port
of GIMP, using the
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:22:35PM -0500, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
The KDE v Gnome issue is somewhat specious, but the Windows issue is
not. Using Windows native UI functionality would probably result in a
stabler, faster program as well as a program that users will
understand better.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 17:24:35 -0600, "Shawn T . Amundson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But hasn't Mozilla basically given up on this idea and just used
their own toolkit? Mozilla certainly looks crappy on the Mac at any
rate.
I was referring to the commercial Netscape product, rather than
Mozilla. I
From: "Michael J. Hammel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:44:47 -0700 (MST)
Thus spoke Robert L Krawitz
From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMHO having two different UIs to perform the same task is a stupid idea.
Actually, it's an eminently sensible
First, I am not a coder:
I'd argue that except for gconf and MAYBE gnome-canvas none of this
stuff belongs in GNOME at all; these are all very generic facilities
that shouldn't depend on any of the IPC, desktop, etc. stuff.
Otherwise we wind up with the same kind of confusion and versioning
On 1 Feb, Shawn T . Amundson wrote:
But hasn't Mozilla basically given up on this idea and just
used their own toolkit? Mozilla certainly looks crappy on the
Mac at any rate.
Not yet... at the moment it's possible to use even gtk or qt for the
UI but they are slowly migrating to their
33 matches
Mail list logo
