[Gimp-developer] libgimpproxy?

2002-12-22 Thread Tor Lillqvist
Hi,

I don't know if this is a silly question, I am quite confused and
tired, but could someone tell what the purpose of libgimpproxy is...?
Why do the functions it contains have to be duplicated in it and in
the GIMP core? Couldn't the GIMP core also use those functions from a
library?

--tml


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer



Re: [Gimp-developer] A Free Software project of interest.

2002-12-22 Thread Adam D. Moss
David Hodson wrote:
> 
> Adam D. Moss wrote:
> 
> >  unfortunately the back-end is GPL
> > which scuppers any realistic plans of GIMP's own back-end being able
> > to move to it, I think.
> 
> Eh? This doesn't appear to make sense.

The goal (I thought) was to keep the lowest levels (GEGL etc)
of GIMP's back-end LGPL.

-- 
Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer



Re: [Gimp-developer] A Free Software project of interest.

2002-12-22 Thread David Hodson
Adam D. Moss wrote:


 unfortunately the back-end is GPL
which scuppers any realistic plans of GIMP's own back-end being able
to move to it, I think.


Eh? This doesn't appear to make sense.

--
David Hodson  --  this night wounds time

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer



Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem

2002-12-22 Thread pcg
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:29:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I could get a good image, but not to the satisfaction of the customer. It
> appeared to be the way in which imagemagick scales the image as opposed to

Do you have an example image? Really, either you hit a bug in imagemagick
itself, or you are simply doing sth. wrong. ImageMagick can use exactly
the same algorithm as gimp.

> gimp.  Gimp seems to handle it better.  I would think it would be pretty much a
> wash but based on what i have coded up so farit's not the case.   At least
> not for the client who is really really picky about the pixelation.  

What, exactly, were you doing (state the command line) with imagemagick?

-- 
  -==- |
  ==-- _   |
  ---==---(_)__  __   __   Marc Lehmann  +--
  --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |e|
  -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\   XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation   |
 |
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer