Re: Bleeding edge, WAS [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 01:14 pm, Simon Budig wrote: John R. Culleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Earlier in my journey autogen.sh had complained about an obsolete intltool so I installed version 32 of that package. Did you rerun autogen.sh after updating intltool? I removed the cvs/gimp directory ran cvs checkout -r HEAD gimp cd to new gimp subdirectory ran autogen.sh ran make ran make install (pls note post below) BTW I switched from stable cvs to unstable by deleting the entire ~/cvs/gimp subdirectory and using the command cvs checkout -r HEAD gimp I used this technique to avoid conflicts between versions. The initial splash screen for the resulting Gimp says: Pixeldumper Developers Release 2.3 but the window displayed when I click helpabout still says version 2.2.9 It seems you installed the old and the new gimp in the same prefix. The about dialog should say 2.3.1. Since I deleted the entire gimp subdirectory I don't see how this could be. Make sure that you read the file HACKING and INSTALL in CVS. Looking for them now. Bye, Simon -- John Culleton Books with answers to marketing and publishing questions: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/shortlist.pdf Book coaches, consultants and packagers: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/packagers.pdf ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: Bleeding edge, WAS [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 12:40, John R. Culleton wrote: Back to the drawing board. :( poor you :(. i am reading this thread with interest and am thinking of having a go myself but i am reluctant to do this incase it overwrites my current installation. can i install, or try to install the gimp 2.2.7 in a seperate folder/dir which will not interfere or overwrite the current working version of gimp i have ? sammi ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: Bleeding edge, WAS [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 04:55:16PM +0100, sam ende wrote: On Wednesday 29 June 2005 12:40, John R. Culleton wrote: Back to the drawing board. :( poor you :(. i am reading this thread with interest and am thinking of having a go myself but i am reluctant to do this incase it overwrites my current installation. can i install, or try to install the gimp 2.2.7 in a seperate folder/dir which will not interfere or overwrite the current working version of gimp i have ? that jumps into advanced building skills. did you get your current installed gimp from a distribution? it should be easy to remove and reinstall such a gimp. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: Bleeding edge, WAS [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 12:59:31PM -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote: On Wednesday 29 June 2005 08:40, John R. Culleton wrote: On Wednesday 29 June 2005 08:52 am, John R. Culleton wrote: thought it was time to rename the thread since I have gone past the problems with pygtk. If anything else comes up of interest I will report back. It seems that the error reported earlier prevented final compilation so I had unstable splash screens but still the same old 2.2 Gimp in actuality. Back to the drawing board. :( Are you running the program as gimp-2.3 ? gimp is just a symbolic link to the actual binary, and the unstable versions to not replace this link to themselves. this is a good point. there is a configure option to make it the default gimp. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: Bleeding edge, WAS [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 03:59 pm, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote: On Wednesday 29 June 2005 08:40, John R. Culleton wrote: On Wednesday 29 June 2005 08:52 am, John R. Culleton wrote: thought it was time to rename the thread since I have gone past the problems with pygtk. If anything else comes up of interest I will report back. It seems that the error reported earlier prevented final compilation so I had unstable splash screens but still the same old 2.2 Gimp in actuality. Back to the drawing board. :( Are you running the program as gimp-2.3 ? gimp is just a symbolic link to the actual binary, and the unstable versions to not replace this link to themselves. That indeed was part of the problem. The rest revolves around intltool. Gim unstable wouldn't take version 30. So I upgraded to version 32.1 That gave problems with both cvs downloads. Now I have upgraded to 33 (which comes with the 2.3.1 gimp tarball BTW) and now stable will compile and install without complaint. I still have the 2.3.1 tarball version in a separate directory so in an emergency I can recompile in a hurry over there. -- John Culleton Books with answers to marketing and publishing questions: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/shortlist.pdf Book coaches, consultants and packagers: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/packagers.pdf ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: Bleeding edge, WAS [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 02:41 pm, John R. Culleton wrote: upgraded to version 32.1 That gave problems with both cvs downloads. Now I have upgraded to 33 (which comes with the 2.3.1 gimp tarball BTW) and now stable will compile and install without complaint. I still have the 2.3.1 tarball version in a separate directory so in an emergency I can recompile in a hurry over there. At this moment I have unstable (2.3.2) compiled and installed and everything seems to be copasetic. The intltool gotcha should be noted by anyone going this route. And of course I had to check date and times and relink gimp and gimp-remote to the latest versions. Thanks to Carol, Sven and Joao among others. Come on in folks, and dive in the pool, the unstable water is fine :) -- John Culleton Books with answers to marketing and publishing questions: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/shortlist.pdf Book coaches, consultants and packagers: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/packagers.pdf ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:46:12AM +, John R. Culleton wrote: On Tuesday 28 June 2005 10:13 am, John R. Culleton wrote: On Tuesday 14 June 2005 08:42 pm, Carol Spears wrote: mr. culleton, i am going to respectfully ask the reason that after all of this time you are not running a cvs version of gimp? you seem overdue for this. With other packages there is an overnight snapshot of the CVS, bundled as tarball. Does such a facility exist for Gimp? Where? if you find pygtk and get python running on gimp, i would like to have your feedback about my silly little script writing attempts. Still struggling with pygtk. More later. Happy to report that they pygtk problem has bee ameliorated. I found pygtk-2.0 and installed it. Then after a little cut-and try I copied pygtk-2.0.pc to /usr/lib/pkgconfig. That bypassed the error messages. Why the pygtk make install didn't do this automatically I don't know. Because you're supposed to set PKG_CONFIG_PATH in the environment to point to where the .pc file lives, instead of copying it. This is mentioned in INSTALL, although the context is regarding gtk+ itself, not pygtk. -Yosh ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
Hi, John R. Culleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With other packages there is an overnight snapshot of the CVS, bundled as tarball. Does such a facility exist for Gimp? Where? That doesn't exist and it would be a terrible waste of bandwidth since you are likely going to download that tarball frequently whereas a simple CVS update would just pull in the changes from CVS. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Tuesday 28 June 2005 07:28 pm, Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, John R. Culleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With other packages there is an overnight snapshot of the CVS, bundled as tarball. Does such a facility exist for Gimp? Where? That doesn't exist and it would be a terrible waste of bandwidth since you are likely going to download that tarball frequently whereas a simple CVS update would just pull in the changes from CVS. Sven Understood. I am not expert in CVS (translation, I just printed out the manual this morning) but it seems that it is command line driven. Do I sign on to a Gimp CVS server somewhere using telnet? If so what is the address etc.? As I say I am a total babe in the woods with CVS. I do have a CVS program suite on my (Linux Slackware 10.1) system but don't know how to twist the wires together to make the initial interface between my system and the remote system. Remember, I am the guy who sat through my first mainframe training class looking for the diagram that showed the hardware peripheral called the assembler. On the last day it dawned on me that the assembler was really a program. So assume gross stupidity. -- John Culleton Books with answers to marketing and publishing questions: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/shortlist.pdf Book coaches, consultants and packagers: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/packagers.pdf ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
Hi, John R. Culleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not expert in CVS (translation, I just printed out the manual this morning) but it seems that it is command line driven. Do I sign on to a Gimp CVS server somewhere using telnet? If so what is the address etc.? This might be a good start: http://gimp.org/source/#gimp_from_cvs Hmm, is that really the best documentation on CVS that we currently offer? Perhaps the classic version (classic and outdated, adjust version numbers!) can help: http://classic.gimp.org/devel_cvs.html Sven PS: We could really use some help with the gimp website. ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:13:28AM +, John R. Culleton wrote: On Tuesday 14 June 2005 08:42 pm, Carol Spears wrote: mr. culleton, i am going to respectfully ask the reason that after all of this time you are not running a cvs version of gimp? you seem overdue for this. With other packages there is an overnight snapshot of the CVS, bundled as tarball. Does such a facility exist for Gimp? Where? let me use an example from my government to demonstrate how cvs gimp works better than this overnight model -- the mozilla nightlies is the one example i have seen of this. my government funded the SETI program. when funding was removed so many interested people used the SETI at home software to contribute. from what i heard of the success of this conversion, to free themselves from the limitations of the old mainframes and use all of those home computers to do the work, the amount of actual work they accomplished with the new set up is best measured exponentially. i have watched this build process as it has progressed on windows. there was a time where Tor was building all of the gimps that were used on windows. since that time, (pardon misspellings) jernj and michael schumaml have been building gimp from cvs on windows and a few others as well. these poor souls are building gimp with a sane build system on an operating system that is not friendly to development like this. their efforts go far into making that build system better and better. it would be nice to see some mac users with the same unafraid spirit to attempt to build gimp for their operating system as well. that might be an environment that is designed for critics and not for builders and makers though -- i dunno for sure. i am not so certain that providing those snapshots did very much to actually make good software. the definition of what makes good software is greatly under debate -- i would still like to see a browser, from the free world, that is capable of displaying mng. my mozilla will gladly and easily display flash, which unfortunately includes the advertisements. and it downloads the files even though i do not have the plug-in installed. this is what the build-farm has rendered. if you find pygtk and get python running on gimp, i would like to have your feedback about my silly little script writing attempts. Still struggling with pygtk. More later. yes, i admit i read that before i wrote this. sorry for the delay, i was at a different place in my inbox than here while all of the fun was going on. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 12:59, John R. Culleton wrote: Am running 2.3.0 without incident. I downloaded 2.3.1 and attempted to configure. I got a message about pygtk-2.0 missing. What is this, is it essential and where can I find it? Not a huge deal. 2.3.0 is OK. From gimp 2.3.1 and ahead, teh gimp python extension is enabled by default. With it in, you get some new plug-ins, but above everythiong else, a powrfull high level language to script up the GIMP in better and easy ways. Search google to find the best way to install pygtk on your system (if you have to build it, it is buitl easily and without mess ) These are the bindings of the python language to GTK . If you are in ahurry, however, you cvan just pass --disable-python to the ./configure script, and live a little more withou the python plug-ins. JS -- ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:59:24PM +, John R. Culleton wrote: Am running 2.3.0 without incident. I downloaded 2.3.1 and attempted to configure. I got a message about pygtk-2.0 missing. What is this, is it essential and where can I find it? i am not certain where to find this, however ./configure --help will tell you how to configure it without python. 2.3.1 has a problem with maintaining transparent layers, so you might stick with 2.2 for that reason. mr. culleton, i am going to respectfully ask the reason that after all of this time you are not running a cvs version of gimp? you seem overdue for this. if you find pygtk and get python running on gimp, i would like to have your feedback about my silly little script writing attempts. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] pygtk and 2.3.1
Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote: On Tuesday 14 June 2005 12:59, John R. Culleton wrote: Am running 2.3.0 without incident. I downloaded 2.3.1 and attempted to configure. I got a message about pygtk-2.0 missing. What is this, is it essential and where can I find it? Not a huge deal. 2.3.0 is OK. From gimp 2.3.1 and ahead, teh gimp python extension is enabled by default. With it in, you get some new plug-ins, but above everythiong else, a powrfull high level language to script up the GIMP in better and easy ways. How will this affect Windows' builds for the eventual 2.4 release? I wonder if it will have to be disabled... I hope the Windows compiler crew can figure out a way to accommodate this (i.e., compiling with Python support) EP ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
