Re: [Gimp-developer] cvs tree not compiling

2004-10-01 Thread Olivier
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 09:43:29AM +0200, Olivier wrote:
 after a cvs (anonymous cvs) update last morning:
 
 Making all in libgimp
 make[2]: Entering directory /home/olivier/inst/cvsgimp/gimp/libgimp'
 make[2]: *** No rule to make target `gimpgradientedit_pdb.c', needed by
 `gimpgradientedit_pdb.lo'.  Stop.
 make[2]: Leaving directory /home/olivier/inst/cvsgimp/gimp/libgimp'
 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
 make[1]: Leaving directory /home/olivier/inst/cvsgimp/gimp'
 make: *** [all] Error 2

never mind, I guess something went wrong during the cvs update, because
deleting a substree and updating it again solved the problem.

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


Re: [Gimp-developer] preparing GIMP 2.2

2004-10-01 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

a while ago I posted a list here with things that should be addressed
before we can start doing pre-releases for 2.2. Let's have a look at
what we achieved in the meantime.

 Scale/Resize dialogs

   We definitely need to redo these. The changes to the File-New
   dialog and to the internal unit handling make it necessary to make
   at least some smaller changes to these dialogs. Tigert and Jimmac
   have done mockups, we should look at these mockups again and see
   what we can do.

This still needs to be done, but it isn't really a pre-requisite for a
pre-release. I might have a look at it it weekend.

 Text tool improvements

   I will try to finish some of the stuff that has been scheduled for
   2.0 already, namely text transformations, perhaps text outline and
   text boxes. I can't promise that all of these will get done though.

Well, looks like this will better be postponed further. There are too
many other things that need to be done.

 Plug-in preview

   David Odin is almost done with porting all plug-ins to
   GimpPreviewArea but we might consider to go further and actually get
   GimpPreview into libgimp*. I have some ideas about this and David
   seems to have the time and the enthusiam to help with coding. We
   should definitely try to get at least closer to a full-featured
   preview for plug-ins.

We got quite far with the previews. The API that is in CVS now seems
to be OK for 2.2. We just need to add some padding to the structs and
we should consider to move the private data into an internal struct
using g_type_class_add_private() and g_type_instance_get_private().

 Color management

   This has been discussed quite thoroughly but it still needs to be
   written down in some sort of specification and then been cut down
   into tasks.

I've been sent some code and we've talked about this further. So there
is definitely an interest in implementing this feature. I definitely
think we should get this into 2.2 and I am willing to delay the
release for it. Let's see if we can get something into CVS during the
next week. If that fails, I suggest that we postpone it.

 Layer positioning/alignment

   Jimmac made a nice mockup for a dialog that would help with aligning
   layers. There's also a new plug-in in Bugzilla that deals with the
   same problem but I don't like it that much. This needs some
   discussion, shouldn't be too hard to implement then. It's IMO very
   important though.

I still think this would be important but since we got around w/o it
for so long, we might as well wait another release cycle. If someone
wants to work on it, please speak up.

What else is missing? There's the need for a new print plug-in but
noone has volunteered yet to look at the new API and the plug-in that
the gimp-print developers have prepared for GIMP 2.0.

 Script-Fu vs. Tiny-Fu
 
  We should come to a conclusion whether and how Tiny-Fu can replace
  Script-Fu. I'd suggest we make separate packages gimp-script-fu and
  gimp-tiny-fu and remove Script-Fu from the gimp tree.

I think the best we can do here is to ship 2.2 with Script-Fu but try
to clean up the scripts so that they run with Tiny-Fu as well. We can
then replace Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu in the next development cycle and
interested users can already start to use it with GIMP 2.2 by
installing it separately.

 Python bindings
 
  IMO we should move pygimp out of the gimp tree into a gimp-python
  package. That would make it easier to give it a proper python-like
  build environment and would make it easier for packagers. Yosh also
  had some great plans on improving pygimp. Would probably be a good
  idea to make these improvements independent of the GIMP release
  cycles.

I didn't get any response whatsoever regarding Python. Makes me wonder
if pygimp is still being maintained at all. I would really like to see
a separate pygimp package. Can we please get this done for 2.2?


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


Re: [Gimp-developer] preparing GIMP 2.2

2004-10-01 Thread Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris
On Friday 01 October 2004 10:46, Sven Neumann wrote:

  Python bindings
 
   IMO we should move pygimp out of the gimp tree into a
  gimp-python package. That would make it easier to give it a
  proper python-like build environment and would make it easier for
  packagers. Yosh also had some great plans on improving pygimp.
  Would probably be a good idea to make these improvements
  independent of the GIMP release cycles.

 I didn't get any response whatsoever regarding Python. Makes me
 wonder if pygimp is still being maintained at all. I would really
 like to see a separate pygimp package. Can we please get this done
 for 2.2?

I've talked to Yosh about this, and he said he intend to do the move - 
but he seems to be quite busy lately. Jamesh also told he could not 
pick it alone.


I had been using it, but never had seen the code until this week - I 
am willing to help improve and maintaining it, but I lack the time 
and expertize needed to maintain a separte package all by myself. 

Over the next week, I plan at least to clean up the tabs on the 
remianing python files. The widgtes should be mostly rewidgetziled, 
since it is currntly using String Entries for almost everything. If 
it cannot be taken apart for 2.2, that at least could be done.

I would agree with the schdules on the other itens. If there is a 
delay, maybe text-transofrms could get in, but they'd need 
PDB-entries as well.

Another thing IMHO is important, although marked as low priority in 
bugzilla is exposing the full options for the transform tools in the 
PDB  - BUG 137053 
( http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137053 )
That would make whole classes of plug-ins easier to write. 





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