>>You need to build things in the selected build directory, babl, gegl
>>and gimp
>
>>If glib and gtk versions are too low, you need to build those and
>>their dependancies in the selected directory.
>
>>DO NOT BUILD IN /usr or /usr/local
>
>>Make sure that the console you are working is the conso
> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:56:50 -1000
> From: 75270.3...@earthlink.net
> To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument
> consolidation and referencing
>
> In particular, a problem I encounter with workflow in GIMP is that GIMP
> doesn't reall
>You need to build things in the selected build directory, babl, gegl
>and gimp
>If glib and gtk versions are too low, you need to build those and
>their dependancies in the selected directory.
>DO NOT BUILD IN /usr or /usr/local
>Make sure that the console you are working is the console that yo
> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:46:00 +0800
> From: ngoonee.t...@gmail.com
> To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - 2.8 Usability Drop
>
> what 'community' and 'user base' is this that you speak
> of? All I see is some individuals with individual opinions and a
> varying lack
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 4:56 AM, scott s. wrote:
> It seems to me that opening vice import has many of the same issues/
> useability requirements that should be considered. In particular, a
> problem I encounter with workflow in GIMP is that GIMP doesn't really
> handle (AFAIK) meta-data embedded
>>http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu
>
> Just so you know... I just removed the BABL and GEGL libraries from my
> system and attempted to build exactly as the instructions say I
> should... well, it says:
>
> checking for GLIB - version >= 2.28.0... no
> *** Could not run
On 7/14/2012 04:45, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Johannes wrote:
This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong):
### CORRECTED
There are a handful of people developing GIMP. They are following this:
http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification
>http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu
Just so you know... I just removed the BABL and GEGL libraries from my system
and attempted to build exactly as the instructions say I should... well, it
says:
checking for GLIB - version >= 2.28.0... no
*** Could not run GLIB test p
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM, erroneus wrote:
>>I suggest you read these instructions (ignore the ubuntu bias);
>
>>http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu
>
>>If that's a whole new world, you will find it an interesting learning
>>curve
>
> It's not a "whole new" world, bu
>I suggest you read these instructions (ignore the ubuntu bias);
>http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu
>If that's a whole new world, you will find it an interesting learning
>curve
It's not a "whole new" world, but it's not something I've done in a long while.
I would l
>>On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, erroneus wrote:
> I want to be able to run my older version of GNOME with a newer
> version of GiMP. How can I resolve this? If the answer is compiling
> from source, can I get some hints as to what whole sets of source I
> need to get and how to go about inst
>On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, erroneus wrote:
>> But it has revealed what I believe are philisophical flaws in GiMP and/or
>> GNOME which I think should be resolved.
>You may see it as a philosophical flow, but I see it as just another
>example of duality.
>> How do I get this shared with d
On 14.07.2012 19:24, Johannes wrote:
Am 14.07.2012 16:45, schrieb Chris Mohler:
You can:
A: Bitch
B: Adapt
C: Fork
I suggest option B or C - they're likely to be the most productive.
In fact, I am preparing option B.
Precondition for this is a good understanding of what is to be adapted.
Am 14.07.2012 19:24, schrieb Johannes:
> not cast perls before
> people without arguments.
...and no pearls, too.
--
Johannes
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Am 14.07.2012 16:45, schrieb Chris Mohler:
> You can:
>
> A: Bitch
>
> B: Adapt
>
> C: Fork
>
> I suggest option B or C - they're likely to be the most productive.
In fact, I am preparing option B.
Precondition for this is a good understanding of what is to be adapted.
I don't want my changes
Well, that is the question isn't it?
On 7/14/2012 7:34 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Johannes wrote:
Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some weeks
now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.
Therefore let's
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, erroneus wrote:
> But it has revealed what I believe are philisophical flaws in GiMP and/or
> GNOME which I think should be resolved.
You mean that GIMP developers sometimes bump dependencies? We don't do
it, because we like annoying people. We do it, because ups
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Johannes wrote:
> This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong):
### CORRECTED
There are a handful of people developing GIMP. They are following this:
http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification
Based on this:
http://gui.gimp.org/index
>On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:02 AM, erroneus wrote:
>> Why would developers choose to shut us out like this?
>We don't do any Linux packaging. We encourage you to become the first
>team member who does it.
>Alexandre Prokoudine
>http://libregraphicsworld.org
I got pretty close last night. Seems
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Johannes wrote:
> Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some weeks
> now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.
>
> Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and contra
> "Making the new open/s
Hello gerard82,
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:59:22 +0200
gerard82 wrote:
> >> This is no way to build an application! Applications and OSes should
> >> never be tied so closely together.
> >>
> >> I like GiMP 2.8 for Windows a lot and would prefer to run it under CentOS
> >> as that is my main d
Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some
weeks now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.
Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and
contra "Making the new open/save/export behavior of GIMP 2.8 optional"
by giving arg
>Hello erroneus,
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:02:29 +0200
>erroneus wrote:
>> I've been looking all over but there are just no CentOS (or RHEL for that
>> matter) packages for the latest version of GiMP. Compiling from source
>> doesn't even seem to be a good option either as it looks as if it wil
Hello erroneus,
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:02:29 +0200
erroneus wrote:
> I've been looking all over but there are just no CentOS (or RHEL for that
> matter) packages for the latest version of GiMP. Compiling from source
> doesn't even seem to be a good option either as it looks as if it will brea
24 matches
Mail list logo
