On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 22:04, Sven Neumann wrote:
> You should consider to rename the package to gimp2.0 or gimp2 so that
> the full package name becomes gimp2.0-2.0pre1 or gimp2-2.0pre1. Then
> it could coexist with the gimp package (that should have been called
> gimp1.2 to begin with).
I renamed
Hi,
Matt wrote:
At 09:33 AM 1/14/04 -0700, SCOTT ANDERSON wrote:
I'm running Win 98, and have downloaded the 2.0 to my program files. I
don't know what to do from here.
_I'll be watching for your post. The WinGIMP page has files and
instructions for 1.2.4 but not for 2.0. I would like to know
Hi,
Jeffrey Brent McBeth wrote:
I have a layer with many disjoint shapes surrounded by transparency. To
move the rectangles, I would select the tool (Z), make sure the threshold
was at 255, and select transparent areas was off. Then I could click on the
shape (which selected everything up to the
Hi,
Josenildo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I renamed it to gimp2.0 and installed it.
> rpm -i -v gimp2.0-2.0pre1-1mdk.i586.rpm
>
> It is installed as gimp-1.3. Is this correct ?
Yes, the executable and the libraries will continue to be called 1.3
until the first release candidates for
I apologize to Sven N. for accidentally emailing him last night. Goofed
up in the mail program. ;) I usually try to be sure everything is
replied only to the list. Yesterday I noticed some stuff was replied in
private email and thought I caught them all.
Anyway, I wonder if they would somehow make
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:30:39AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeffrey Brent McBeth wrote:
> >I have a layer with many disjoint shapes surrounded by transparency. To
> >move the rectangles, I would select the tool (Z), make sure the threshold
> >was at 255, and select transparent areas was
Hi,
misfit-x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, I wonder if they would somehow make the features that are
> available for pen-tablets in Gimp useable for the mouse too. Like
> for instance, the brush size (in 2.0pre1), etc. or have a regular
> feature added to manually add the size to what you
Hi,
Xsane doesn't appear to work with the devel. release of Gimp? Searched
the net for clues, but it seems I only found out that they don't work
together. Anyhow, I guess you're familiar with the problem and I don't
have to explain it further?
I'm assuming it will be made to work though, so do
In one of the recent reviews of the upcoming Gimp 2 it has been
advertised that it will fully support CMYK.
There was actually a statement in the review like, if you have problems
with the Photoshop license throw it away and use The Gimp. Or why spend
$600 if you can use the Gimp and open these Ph
hi, I've just joined, been a fan of Gimp for quite like 1-2 years
now .. but still I do a lot better in Photoshop. Hopefully this will all
change now that I've joined this list. Greets to everybody!
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:/
On Jan 16, 2004, at 10:13 AM, Thomas Spuhler wrote:
In one of the recent reviews of the upcoming Gimp 2 it has been
advertised that it will fully support CMYK.
(Which recent review?)
yes, this has been an irritating problem. Some time ago (3 years) it
was decided that the gimp would need to go t
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 11:56, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2004, at 10:13 AM, Thomas Spuhler wrote:
>
> > In one of the recent reviews of the upcoming Gimp 2 it has been
> > advertised that it will fully support CMYK.
>
> (Which recent review?)
Cannot find it anymore. Maybe it's pulled off th
Hi,
Kristian Niemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Xsane doesn't appear to work with the devel. release of Gimp? Searched
> the net for clues, but it seems I only found out that they don't work
> together. Anyhow, I guess you're familiar with the problem and I don't
> have to explain it further?
>
Hi:
I saw that zoom has been changed following bug 124073. After trying
it, I did not liked it. Personally I think it gives too much
importance to extreme zooms, forgeting most people work around
100%. 4000 to 20 pix images in a reasonable size monitor is what I
normally see, not 4 pix or peop
Hi,
GSR / FR wrote:
> I saw that zoom has been changed following bug 124073. After trying
> it, I did not liked it. Personally I think it gives too much
> importance to extreme zooms, forgeting most people work around
> 100%. 4000 to 20 pix images in a reasonable size monitor is what I
> normally
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-16 at 2215.53 +0100):
> There are some issues with the patch, though. I don't really get
> what's happenning in the if (src == 1 && dest == 1) clause, and
> I'm not sure completely reverting the old change is the way to
> go.
It is the flip point, and I found the sequenc
Hi,
I don't think it makes sense to discuss patches here. We should
concentrate on the behaviour we'd like to see and do the
implementation later.
In my opinion it is important that the series of zoom ratios is
linear. The current implementation fulfills this requirement, it
favors zoom ratios s
GSR / FR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I saw that zoom has been changed following bug 124073. After trying
> it, I did not liked it. Personally I think it gives too much
> importance to extreme zooms, forgeting most people work around
> 100%. 4000 to 20 pix images in a reasonable size monitor is wha
Simon Budig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> With this approach it is trivial to implement different approaches
> for the zooming strategy: "homogenous zooming" would multiply/divide
> by sqrt(2), "preset zooming" would have a lookup table with percentages
> for the different zoom steps and move back/f
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 18:38, Brad Kligerman wrote:
> checking for GTK+ - version >= 2.2.2...
> *** 'pkg-config --modversion gtk+-2.0' returned 2.2.4, but GTK+ (2.2.1)
> *** was found!
> When I tried to uninstall GTK+ (2.2.1) as you suggested, it said 2.2.1
> was not installed.
# rpm -qa | grep gt
20 matches
Mail list logo
