[Gimp-user] Gimp 1.3.16 + Wacom Tablet
I recently tryed The Gimp 1.3.16 and loved that the new interface. I've started using this version for my everyday needs in graphics manipulation. But I have a problem with this version, my Wacom Graphire 2 tablet is not detected... I've seen that the Input device Dialog as been moved in the preferences but when I try to "Configure Input Devices" it always say "No Input Devices". Does the tablet support has been disabled in 1.3.16 ? After reading the past posts in the mailing list I've seen that not having compiled xinput in GTK2 could be the problem. I verified and recompiled GTK2 with the xinput support, but Gimp still can't detect my input device. Can anyone help me on this problem? Thanks, M-A Loyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Update on the Drive to 2.0
Hi all, Just wanted to give ye a quick update on the triage of un-milestoned bugs in the run-up to the 2.0 feature freeze. Thanks to the help of Maurits Rijk, Tino Schwarz and Alan Horkan, there are now only 200 outstanding bugs to be filtered, compared to the 361 yesterday. However, I have to admit I'm a little disappointed by the take-up. I was hoping that a few more brave souls would volunteer an hour or two of their time to work through a few of these bugs. The link to the list is still http://makeashorterlink.com/?S1DF64A55 I really cannot emphasise how much this would help, so please, if you can spare a few minutes, follow the link and head on over to Bugzilla. Thank you. Also, there has been one small hiccup, so I'd like to re-iterate the guidelines (which are a bit vague, I know) which I laid out yesterday. The objective is to have everything with a milestone of "--" milestoned to one of 1.3.x, 2.0 or Future. 1) Anything which is a defect in a feature already present in the 1.3 series should be marked with the milestone 2.0. Bugs in general are not blockers for a feature freeze. Exceptions to this rule are critical or major bugs which cause the application to crash. These should at least be considered before we start doing pre-releases for a stable release, and should be milestoned 1.3.x. 2) Anything which is a feature which is important (where important means that the lack of the feature would be a major pain for some people) should be milestoned 1.3.x 3) Any other feature should be milestoned Future. This includes features which require lots of coding in the core, or features which are fuzzy and aspirational (good examplea are bug # 104631 - allow dynamic resizing of brushes, or bug # 6893, Improve support for Vector Graphics - both these should be milestoned to Future). When we're down to 20 or 30 features that haven't been milestoned, we can start trying to find people to implement them. Actually, Tino Schwarz paraphrased the guidelines pretty well in a mail to me earlier - he said: To paraphrase this: 1.3.x means "needs to go in before feature freeze because it's an important feature", 2.0 means "real bug, should be fixed after feature freeze, but before release" and Future means "we don't care for 2.0" So that's about it. As before, if anyone is having trouble with permissions in Mozilla, get onto me personally explaining the problem, and I will sort you out. Happy GIMPing, Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Bug triage guides
Hi, I just found this page... http://developer.gnome.org/projects/bugsquad/triage/ ...which explains the ideas behind filtering bugs. It's actually quite a simple explanation, and applies quite well to the gimp when you substitute #gimp for #bugs :) Anyone who wants to contribute to the gimp bug triage, but who doesn't have permission to change milestones, please mail me, and I will either get you sorted, or give you a list of people who can change milestones (more likely the former). Be warned, the pointy stick approach will be in effect - if you make changes that you shouldn't (for example, to bugs in other products than the gimp), you will lose your rights. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] transparent PNGs in IE
Andrew Langdon-Davies wrote: > I know there's already been a lot of discussion on this subject and I've > read pages and pages, but I'm still unclear. I realise that just about all > recent browsers support PNGs. But, is it or is it not possible for IE (v. > 5, for example) to correctly display a PNG with a fully transparent > background so that anything behind it shows through? My PNGs are OK in Yes. To do so, you need to make sure that your png is saved as an indexed image, rather than rgb (which png supports, but gif doesn't - this is why when you save as gif, you get a dialog asking you if it's OK to index the image sometimes). To do this, go into the Image->Mode menu, and select Indexed as the mode of the image. Then choose a palette to use (automatic is usually OK), and save as png as you do normally. The GIMP's png support is limited somewhat by its core support for indexed images - you can have one index entry completely transparent, but partial transparency (which is supported by png) is not supported for indexed images in the gimp. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tél: 04 78 58 08 83 CV: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~bolsh/CV/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] transparent PNGs in IE
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:47:56AM +0200, Andrew Langdon-Davies wrote: | I know there's already been a lot of discussion on this subject and I've | read pages and pages, but I'm still unclear. I realise that just about all | recent browsers support PNGs. But, is it or is it not possible for IE (v. | 5, for example) to correctly display a PNG with a fully transparent | background so that anything behind it shows through? My PNGs are OK in | Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Konqueror and Nautilus, but in IE they have a | rectangular white background that completely wrecks the effect. | TIA, | Andrew | It is possible to achieve this using DirectX on IE under Windows. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q294714 The reason that IE does not support alpha may be due to a design issue, rather than their reluctance to support PNG. You can achieve 1-bit transparency for example. Mukund ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] transparent PNGs in IE
I know there's already been a lot of discussion on this subject and I've read pages and pages, but I'm still unclear. I realise that just about all recent browsers support PNGs. But, is it or is it not possible for IE (v. 5, for example) to correctly display a PNG with a fully transparent background so that anything behind it shows through? My PNGs are OK in Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Konqueror and Nautilus, but in IE they have a rectangular white background that completely wrecks the effect. TIA, Andrew -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
