[Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of 
late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release.  Does anyone know 
what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release? 
___

Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of
> late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release.  Does anyone know
> what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release?

Whenever I get around to do it, which will hopefully be this weekend.
But, seriously, why don't you just use CVS?


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that 
would be...  mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so 
compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux.  If I 
could figure out how to compile from CVS on Win32, I definitely would.  
Of course, I'm just going on the info I found at wiki.gimp.org that said 
that compiling from CVS required additional software.  Then again, maybe 
I'm just overcomplicating this.  Is it as simple as downloading the 
source from CVS and compiling it?  And for that matter, if that's the 
case, is there an easy way to download the source from CVS?  Thanks in 
advance for any feedback you can offer.


Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  

I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of
late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release.  Does anyone know
what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release?



Whenever I get around to do it, which will hopefully be this weekend.
But, seriously, why don't you just use CVS?


Sven

  

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[michael chang]

On 9/23/05, Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that
> would be...  mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so
> compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux.  If I

Solution: Linux/POSIX emulation layer.  Cygwin is usually used.

MinGW/MSYS is also workable, IIRC.  I've never compiled GIMP on either, though.

> could figure out how to compile from CVS on Win32, I definitely would.
> Of course, I'm just going on the info I found at wiki.gimp.org that said
> that compiling from CVS required additional software.  Then again, maybe

Cygwin or MinGW/MSYS, as I said.

You'll also need the development codes for various graphics libraries,
e.g. libpng-dev.  These are provided in sepearte packages (e.g. select
in the Cygwin Installer) or available by compiling the libraries from
source.

> I'm just overcomplicating this.  Is it as simple as downloading the
> source from CVS and compiling it?  And for that matter, if that's the

Almost.

> case, is there an easy way to download the source from CVS?  Thanks in

The cvs tool. ;)

> advance for any feedback you can offer.
>
> Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >> I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of
> >> late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release.  Does anyone know
> >> what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release?
> >>
> >
> > Whenever I get around to do it, which will hopefully be this weekend.
> > But, seriously, why don't you just use CVS?

Of course, at the end of the day, I think it'd be nicest if they made
an installer for the Windows binaries for the development releases,
but I'm quite sure that's probably more work than it's worth.

One of these days, I know I'll get around to compiling GIMP from CVS
myself.  Just need to clear out some working space first.

--
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[pmagnoli]

Hi,
you can safely follow the instructions at
http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/HowToCompileGimp/MicrosoftWindows you just need to
modify the supplied CompileGimp.sh updating the lines listing GTK_PACKAGES
and MINGW_PACKAGES as there are more recent versions avaliable, mine are:
# Names of packages and versions.
GTK_PACKAGES=”glib-2.6.5 glib-dev-2.6.5 gtk+-2.6.8 gtk+-dev-2.6.8
pango-1.8.0 pango-dev-1.8.0 atk-1.9.0 atk-dev-1.9.0″

MINGW_PACKAGES=”libpng-1.2.8-bin libpng-1.2.8-dep libpng-1.2.8-lib
jpeg-6b-4-bin jpeg-6b-4-dep jpeg-6b-4-lib tiff-3.7.3-bin tiff-3.7.3-lib
freetype-2.1.10-bin freetype-2.1.10-lib zlib-1.2.3-bin zlib-1.2.3-lib
libgw32c-0.4-lib libiconv-1.8-1-bin libiconv-1.8-1-lib”

don’t forget to update also GIMP_PACKAGE and GIMP_BASE

also change the final compile command to suit your environment (the prefix):

echo “Building and installing The GimpShop”
./configure –disable-print –disable-python
–prefix=/YOURFOLDERHERE && make && make install

Be warned, compilation takes some time …
I’ll make GIMP 2.3.3 available on eMule sooner or later.
Hope this helps

If the automatic download with wget doesn't work just download the packages
by hand and place them in the temp directory mentioned in the script, then
comment the wget line and rerun it, it will decompress and install them just
fine.
Hope this helps

paolo

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto

> Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that 
> would be...  mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so 
> compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux.  If I 
> could figure out how to compile from CVS on Win32, I definitely would.  
> Of course, I'm just going on the info I found at wiki.gimp.org that said 
> that compiling from CVS required additional software.  Then again, maybe 
> I'm just overcomplicating this.  Is it as simple as downloading the 
> source from CVS and compiling it?  And for that matter, if that's the 
> case, is there an easy way to download the source from CVS?  Thanks in 
> advance for any feedback you can offer.
> 
> Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >   
> >> I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of
> >> late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release.  Does anyone know
> >> what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release?
> >> 
> >
> > Whenever I get around to do it, which will hopefully be this weekend.
> > But, seriously, why don't you just use CVS?
> >
> >
> > Sven
> >
> >   
> ___
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
> 



___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

Ahhh... Thanks to all who've responded...  I guess I'm getting lost at 
what packages to download from CVS and in what directories to place 
them...  At present, I've already used Msys to compile GIMP 2.3.3 from a 
tarball.  Since I've never tried compiling from CVS, I wasn't sure IF I 
would need other software... (Right now I have ActivePerl, Msys, and 
MinGW per the wiki).  More importantly though, I wasn't sure what source 
to download and to what folders.  Can you guys point me in the right 
direction?


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi,
you can safely follow the instructions at
http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/HowToCompileGimp/MicrosoftWindows you just need to
modify the supplied CompileGimp.sh updating the lines listing GTK_PACKAGES
and MINGW_PACKAGES as there are more recent versions avaliable, mine are:
# Names of packages and versions.
GTK_PACKAGES=”glib-2.6.5 glib-dev-2.6.5 gtk+-2.6.8 gtk+-dev-2.6.8
pango-1.8.0 pango-dev-1.8.0 atk-1.9.0 atk-dev-1.9.0″

MINGW_PACKAGES=”libpng-1.2.8-bin libpng-1.2.8-dep libpng-1.2.8-lib
jpeg-6b-4-bin jpeg-6b-4-dep jpeg-6b-4-lib tiff-3.7.3-bin tiff-3.7.3-lib
freetype-2.1.10-bin freetype-2.1.10-lib zlib-1.2.3-bin zlib-1.2.3-lib
libgw32c-0.4-lib libiconv-1.8-1-bin libiconv-1.8-1-lib”

don’t forget to update also GIMP_PACKAGE and GIMP_BASE

also change the final compile command to suit your environment (the prefix):

echo “Building and installing The GimpShop”
./configure –disable-print –disable-python
–prefix=/YOURFOLDERHERE && make && make install

Be warned, compilation takes some time …
I’ll make GIMP 2.3.3 available on eMule sooner or later.
Hope this helps

If the automatic download with wget doesn't work just download the packages
by hand and place them in the temp directory mentioned in the script, then
comment the wget line and rerun it, it will decompress and install them just
fine.
Hope this helps

paolo

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto

  
Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that 
would be...  mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so 
compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux.  If I 
could figure out how to compile from CVS on Win32, I definitely would.  
Of course, I'm just going on the info I found at wiki.gimp.org that said 
that compiling from CVS required additional software.  Then again, maybe 
I'm just overcomplicating this.  Is it as simple as downloading the 
source from CVS and compiling it?  And for that matter, if that's the 
case, is there an easy way to download the source from CVS?  Thanks in 
advance for any feedback you can offer.


Sven Neumann wrote:


Hi,

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  
  

I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of
late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release.  Does anyone know
what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release?



Whenever I get around to do it, which will hopefully be this weekend.
But, seriously, why don't you just use CVS?


Sven

  
  

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer






  

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that
> would be...  mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so
> compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux.  If I
> could figure out how to compile from CVS on Win32, I definitely would.
> Of course, I'm just going on the info I found at wiki.gimp.org that
> said that compiling from CVS required additional software.  Then
> again, maybe I'm just overcomplicating this.  Is it as simple as
> downloading the source from CVS and compiling it?  And for that
> matter, if that's the case, is there an easy way to download the
> source from CVS?  Thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer.

The extra tools needed to compile from CVS are explained in the file
HACKING (as found in the source tree or online at
http://developer.gimp.org/HACKING). How to get software from CVS is
explained in so many places that it is rather pointless to duplicate
that information. gimp.org explains how to get the stable branch at
http://www.gimp.org/source/howtos/stable-cvs-get.html. If you don't
specify a branch you will get the HEAD branch, which is where the
development takes place.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Tor Lillqvist]

michael chang writes:
 > Solution: Linux/POSIX emulation layer.  Cygwin is usually used.

Actually, I think MSYS is more commonly used nowadays, or Microsoft's
own Interix. Cygwin is a bit too heavy, and has a tendency of
occasionally getting too much in your way. Please note the use of
POSIX emulation is for running the build tools (shell, sed, m4, make,
awk, expr, perl etc) only, not GIMP itself.

(It presumably is possible to build GIMP to run itself under some
POSIX emulation like Cygwin, of course, but then it isn't GIMP on
Windows, but really GIMP on yet another Unix (that just happens to be
emulated on top of Windows).)

 > You'll also need the development codes for various graphics libraries,
 > e.g. libpng-dev.  These are provided in sepearte packages (e.g. select
 > in the Cygwin Installer)

No. Cygwin's libpng etc development packages are for building Cygwin
programs. I don't think Cygwin packages stuff like libpng for
cross-development to native Win32 ("mingw"), although they do provide
the cross-compiler (gcc -mno-cygwin) and C runtime and Win32 headers
and libraries (w32api).

The www.gimp.org/win32/downloads.html page has links to Win32 packages
of the required dependencies.

--tml

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Michael Schumacher]

michael chang wrote:


> Solution: Linux/POSIX emulation layer.  Cygwin is usually used.
>
> MinGW/MSYS is also workable, IIRC.  I've never compiled GIMP on either, 
> though.

For GIMP, I'd say that MinGW is preferred - not that there shouldn't any
problems with Cygwin, but anyone trying this might be on his own, most
other people use MinGw...

> Of course, at the end of the day, I think it'd be nicest if they made
> an installer for the Windows binaries for the development releases,
> but I'm quite sure that's probably more work than it's worth.

Problem: how to keep each of the places distributing GIMP (some net
magazines, other random websites, users) from mistaking it as a new
stable release.


Michael

-- 
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org  | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Axel Wernicke]

Am 23.09.2005 um 23:43 schrieb Michael Schumacher:


michael chang wrote:

Problem: how to keep each of the places distributing GIMP (some net
magazines, other random websites, users) from mistaking it as a new
stable release.


How about writing it with large red letters on the splash screen - it  
can't be skipped and is displayed long enough to get the message  
through :)


 lexA




Michael

--
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org  | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer




---
Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get...
GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen



PGP.sig
Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Michael Schumacher]

Axel Wernicke wrote:
> 
> Am 23.09.2005 um 23:43 schrieb Michael Schumacher:

>> Problem: how to keep each of the places distributing GIMP (some net
>> magazines, other random websites, users) from mistaking it as a new
>> stable release.
> 
> How about writing it with large red letters on the splash screen - it 
> can't be skipped and is displayed long enough to get the message 
> through :)

This is one possible step. Another would be to provide binaries of
development releases with a fixed timeout - maybe two months - after
which they stop working. This could be configurable at compile time so
that it is still possible to build outdated version for reference
purposes (or similiar), but it would prevent Joe Average from using or
distributing outdated versions.


Michael

-- 
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org  | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[michael chang]

On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> michael chang wrote:
> > Solution: Linux/POSIX emulation layer.  Cygwin is usually used.
> > MinGW/MSYS is also workable, IIRC.  I've never compiled GIMP on either, 
> > though.
> For GIMP, I'd say that MinGW is preferred - not that there shouldn't any

I prefer MinGW myself, but I believe that if the guy knows how to
compile on Linux, it might be more familliar to him to emulate
Linux/POSIX on Windows with Cygwin than figure out MSYS/MinGW.  But
then again, I found it easier to get used to MSYS/MinGW than Cygwin,
so... *shrugs*

> > Of course, at the end of the day, I think it'd be nicest if they made
> > an installer for the Windows binaries for the development releases,
> > but I'm quite sure that's probably more work than it's worth.
>
> Problem: how to keep each of the places distributing GIMP (some net
> magazines, other random websites, users) from mistaking it as a new
> stable release.

How about not releasing it on the standard page (e.g. "hiding" it in
the developer website somewhere)?

I like the timeout idea too, personally -- POV-Ray (www.povray.org)
has monthly timeouts for its various beta versions (and they have a
new "beta RC" every month).  The problem is that when the timeout
dies, then should be a new version; if there isn't one, it's kinda
silly to have to re-install the same version to extend the timeout. 
In that case, determining a timeout would be hard...

--
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

It's easier on everybody if you just modify the splash screen to have a message to the effect of "PRERELEASE VERSION INTENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT TESTING ONLY" rather than forcing people to one day have to do extra work because of someone's arbitrary timeout policy.
The message could even tell where to download the production version, or have a button to update it.  
_-Ted

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Michael Schumacher]

michael chang wrote:
> On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>>michael chang wrote:

> The problem is that when the timeout dies, then should be a new 
> version; if there isn't one, it's kinda silly to have to re-install
> the same version to extend the timeout.

Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard
timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example,
and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future.

> In that case, determining a timeout would be hard...

Not really. Running development releases is only useful up to a certain
time anyway - once current CVS has advanced considerably, there is not
much to be gained from using an outdated one. Also, this should
encourage people to keep the latest stable release installed - after
all, this one will not time out.

And finally, if anyone insists on using a development release longer
than the timeout lets him, he can alwyys use the source and disable the
timeout at compile time - and we can assume that if someone pops up with
an outdated release he know what he's doing.


Michael

-- 
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org  | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Axel Wernicke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> How about writing it with large red letters on the splash screen - it
> can't be skipped and is displayed long enough to get the message
> through :)

Of course the splash screen can be skipped. AFAIK many distributons
configure GIMP to not show a splash screen. Since GIMP implements
startup notification, that's a very reasonable thing to do.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[michael chang]

On 9/25/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> michael chang wrote:
> > On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>michael chang wrote:
>
> > The problem is that when the timeout dies, then should be a new
> > version; if there isn't one, it's kinda silly to have to re-install
> > the same version to extend the timeout.
>
> Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard
> timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example,
> and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future.

What I mean is lets say the software times out after 70 days the
RC/beta is made.  That means that there has to be a new RC/beta after
70 days, or otherwise no one can use it post those 70 days.  If there
isn't, then someone might just rebuild the current RC for another 70
days, which is pointless.

E.g. if there was a 2.3.5 today, and it expires in 60 days.  So that
means 2.3.6 has to be released within 60 days.  How do we know 2.3.6
will be ready in 60 days?

If you want to force yourself on such a release cycle, by all means,
but last I checked, GIMP doesn't used fixed release cycles.  I could
be wrong though; I'm not a GIMP developer.  I mean, it's not like
fixed release cycles are all that bad of a thing.  Then again, you
might want to give yourself some leeway (e.g. trying to release a
version of GIMP 15 days before the last RC/beta expired or something;
that way delays can be absorbed into the 15 days that remain from the
last RC/beta/devel release).

> > In that case, determining a timeout would be hard...
>
> Not really. Running development releases is only useful up to a certain
> time anyway - once current CVS has advanced considerably, there is not
> much to be gained from using an outdated one. Also, this should
> encourage people to keep the latest stable release installed - after
> all, this one will not time out.

Well, that's very true.  I believe the 2.2.8 version of gimp is really
a 2.2.7+cvssomething on Debian - and those are offical packages.

> And finally, if anyone insists on using a development release longer
> than the timeout lets him, he can alwyys use the source and disable the
> timeout at compile time - and we can assume that if someone pops up with
> an outdated release he know what he's doing.

True.

--
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard
> timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example,
> and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future.

What's all this fuss? There is absolutely no reason why we should
cripple any GIMP release, development version or not, by doing such
silly things. This is Free Software. We are distributing it as source
code. If someone wants to build binaries and distribute them, so be
it. You might not have noticed yet, but binary distribution of the
GIMP 2.3 series is not in any way discouraged. Of course we appreciate
if pacakagers make it clear that they are distributing an unfinished
development release but that's something we can only ask for.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

I compiled GIMP 2.3.4 from tarball the other day and I've noticed a few 
things.


1)  The last 2 times I've compiled GIMP, I've found my installation 
missing some key libraries at the end of the build.  Is this normal?  
(Missing libraries differed each time)  To fix it I pulled libraries 
from my stable GIMP 2.2 installation and that seems to work but some odd 
things occur in the build that I wouldn't expect - even of a development 
release.


2)  One of those odd things is that the entire layer dialog is 
non-responsive.  No lock ups or anything, it just sits there, does 
nothing (even when layers are created, etc), and doesn't accept 
commands.  Is this to be expected in the 2.3.4 release or should I 
expect that something else is wrong.


Here are my system specs
Windows XP SP2, GTK+ 2.6.9
MinGW, MSys, ActivePerl

I built GIMP 2.3.4 with Glib 2.8.0 and GTK+ 2.6.9.  I also used atk 
1.9.0 and pango 1.8.2


The other dependencies (for various plugins) were the latest stable 
versions that I could find.  Any ideas what might cause this type of 
behavior?


Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  

Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard
timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example,
and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future.



What's all this fuss? There is absolutely no reason why we should
cripple any GIMP release, development version or not, by doing such
silly things. This is Free Software. We are distributing it as source
code. If someone wants to build binaries and distribute them, so be
it. You might not have noticed yet, but binary distribution of the
GIMP 2.3 series is not in any way discouraged. Of course we appreciate
if pacakagers make it clear that they are distributing an unfinished
development release but that's something we can only ask for.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

  

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I compiled GIMP 2.3.4 from tarball the other day and I've noticed a
> few things.
>
> 1)  The last 2 times I've compiled GIMP, I've found my installation
> missing some key libraries at the end of the build.  Is this
> normal?  (Missing libraries differed each time)  To fix it I
> pulled libraries from my stable GIMP 2.2 installation and that
> seems to work but some odd things occur in the build that I
> wouldn't expect - even of a development release.

You did what???  There is really no point in doing such things unless
you know very well what you are doing. If you have problems to compile
GIMP, ask. And if you ask, please describe your problems in detail. I
have left my crystal ball at home today so I really can't figure out
what "some missing key libraries at the end of the build" are.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  

I compiled GIMP 2.3.4 from tarball the other day and I've noticed a
few things.

1)  The last 2 times I've compiled GIMP, I've found my installation
missing some key libraries at the end of the build.  Is this
normal?  (Missing libraries differed each time)  To fix it I
pulled libraries from my stable GIMP 2.2 installation and that
seems to work but some odd things occur in the build that I
wouldn't expect - even of a development release.



You did what???  There is really no point in doing such things unless
you know very well what you are doing. If you have problems to compile
GIMP, ask. 

Sven,
   That's what I was doing with my former e-mail.  I was advised to 
take the missing DLL's from my stable GIMP 2.2 to fill the gap for the 
missing DLL's in my fresh compilation of GIMP 2.3.  If you're wondering 
where I got the advice, I got it from another Windows user who was 
compiling GIMP 2.3.3 on GUG.  Honestly, I've been able to compile GIMP 
twice now, but both times I've wound up short a handful of DLL's in my 
bin folder.  Since I don't know what DLL's I should have at the end of 
compile time, I just guessed and brought over all the missing DLL's as 
compared with my GIMP 2.2 build.



And if you ask, please describe your problems in detail. I
have left my crystal ball at home today so I really can't figure out
what "some missing key libraries at the end of the build" are.
  
I was asking more generic questions because I was looking for more 
generic answers.  I just wanted to know if missing DLL's was a normal 
scenario in Win32 environments.  Since you clearly know that it's not, 
you've jumped ahead of me to asking which DLL's were missing.  Since I 
don't know (I didn't write them all down) I'll have to tell you next 
time I compile.  Instead, I offered all the information I had.  As far 
as your "crystal ball" comment, I'd say that was a bit uncalled for.  
You could have just as easily asked for more information without being 
biting and sarcastic.  You, Sven, of all people should know that flipant 
biting sarcasm is a great way to discourage people from taking up GIMP 
or otherwise contributing to it. 

What if someone considering the possibility of contributing to GIMP read 
that post?  They probably would think twice at that point for fear of 
being publicly humiliated for asking a question.  Don't get me wrong, I 
greatly respect your contributions to GIMP and I'm sure it's frustrating 
answering all of these types of questions.  In fact, I know so.  My 
greatest strength is customer service, sales, and otherwise dealing with 
people so I know how difficult it can be.  Let me just put it this way.  
The ONLY reason people are using or contributing to GIMP is because they 
have problems.  Specifically, they have a need for an image design 
program that's both powerful and inexpensive and GIMP meets that need.  
I'm having COMPILE problems WITH GIMP.  There's really no difference.  
People use software, ask questions, etc because they have problems.  How 
you handle those problems WILL determine the success of the project - 
particularly if you have such an influential position with the project.


At this point, I'd like a little help or direction about compiling GIMP 
in a Win32 environment with MinGW, MSys, and ActivePerl.  For that 
matter, I'd like to be able to compile from CVS so I need to know how to 
get my MSys/MinGW setup to recognize the other software requirements 
(autoconf, libtool, automake, etc.)  If anyone can assist with that, I'd 
be greatful.


Lance
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[John Cupitt]

On 9/28/05, Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point, I'd like a little help or direction about compiling GIMP
> in a Win32 environment with MinGW, MSys, and ActivePerl.

It's not GIMP, but I wrote a HOWTO a couple of days ago for building
my gtk+ app under mingw:

http://wiki.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/bin/view/Main/VipsMingw

For GIMP, don't install fftw. You'll need to install some other
libraries too, http://gimp.org/source has a list. I really wouldn't
carelessly copy DLLs over from previous versions, I think you're sure
to find yourself in a very bad, mysterious place.

That should be enough to be able to build from a distribution tarball
... if you need to build from CVS, it'll be quite a bit more difficult
since you'll need to set up all the auto tools stuff as well.

I'm not a windows person so I probably made it more difficult than it
needs to be. But I did end up with a binary that seems stable.

John
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

Thanks John.  This should help tremendously.  Just two other questions 
then...


1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows AND is it even 
necessary to build GIMP?
2) Where do I install/unzip the all the auto tools?  Should I just unzip 
them to a location in MinGW and use the export command to include those 
directories?  I'm assuming that I don't need a special Win32 build of 
these tools so I've just downloaded them from their respective 
locations.  If I'm wrong about this, please let me know so I can get the 
right copies.  Thanks.


Lance


John Cupitt wrote:

On 9/28/05, Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

At this point, I'd like a little help or direction about compiling GIMP
in a Win32 environment with MinGW, MSys, and ActivePerl.



It's not GIMP, but I wrote a HOWTO a couple of days ago for building
my gtk+ app under mingw:

http://wiki.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/bin/view/Main/VipsMingw

For GIMP, don't install fftw. You'll need to install some other
libraries too, http://gimp.org/source has a list. I really wouldn't
carelessly copy DLLs over from previous versions, I think you're sure
to find yourself in a very bad, mysterious place.

That should be enough to be able to build from a distribution tarball
... if you need to build from CVS, it'll be quite a bit more difficult
since you'll need to set up all the auto tools stuff as well.

I'm not a windows person so I probably made it more difficult than it
needs to be. But I did end up with a binary that seems stable.

John

  

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[John Cupitt]

Hi Lance,

On 9/28/05, Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows AND is it even
> necessary to build GIMP?

Yes, I'm sure Python does build on win, but I've not tried. Some gimp
plugins use it, so you probably need to spend some time experimenting
(unless google turns up a handy howto).

> 2) Where do I install/unzip the all the auto tools?  Should I just unzip
> them to a location in MinGW and use the export command to include those
> directories?  I'm assuming that I don't need a special Win32 build of
> these tools so I've just downloaded them from their respective
> locations.  If I'm wrong about this, please let me know so I can get the
> right copies.

I think msys DTK includes them already. Try "ls /usr/bin/*auto*" and
you'll (probably) see stuff. But I don't know if they include the
versions that GIMP needs, so you might need to uninstall them and
build your own. You'll also need intltoolize I think, and maybe some
other stuff.

I'd install everything that wasn't an official mingw or msys package
to /usr/local/ to make it easy to wipe if something goes wrong.

(I don't know if this is an option for you, and I know how annoying
being told "install linux! problem solved!" is, but building under
linux really is 100x easier than mingw. You could put something like
Ubuntu on a spare partition in 15 minutes, and have a working
gimp-from-cvs build not long after that)

John
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Carol Spears]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:56:12AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
> 
> What if someone considering the possibility of contributing to GIMP read 
> that post?  They probably would think twice at that point for fear of 
> being publicly humiliated for asking a question.  Don't get me wrong, I 
> greatly respect your contributions to GIMP and I'm sure it's frustrating 
> answering all of these types of questions.  In fact, I know so.  My 
> greatest strength is customer service, sales, and otherwise dealing with 
> people so I know how difficult it can be.  Let me just put it this way.  
> The ONLY reason people are using or contributing to GIMP is because they 
> have problems.  Specifically, they have a need for an image design 
> program that's both powerful and inexpensive and GIMP meets that need.  
> I'm having COMPILE problems WITH GIMP.  There's really no difference.  
> People use software, ask questions, etc because they have problems.  How 
> you handle those problems WILL determine the success of the project - 
> particularly if you have such an influential position with the project.
> 
do not count on the user base being only as you defined it here.

if you do not want sarcasm or even honest requests for good development
style, please post these questions on either the gimp user list or the
gimp on windows user list.

the project historically does not want the type of help you described.
only if you believe everything that you read is this not still the case.

carol

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Michael Schumacher]

Lance Dockins wrote:

> 1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows AND is it even
> necessary to build GIMP?

Get it from http://www.python.org
It is not neccessary to build GIMP, but neccessary for the PyGimp
modules and thius Python support in GIMP.

> 2) Where do I install/unzip the all the auto tools?  Should I just unzip
> them to a location in MinGW and use the export command to include those
> directories?  I'm assuming that I don't need a special Win32 build of
> these tools so I've just downloaded them from their respective
> locations.  If I'm wrong about this, please let me know so I can get the
> right copies.  Thanks.

They are part of a MinGw package (IIRC the DTK, as mentioned in another
mail in this thread). There are also updates available from
http://www.mingw.org. But it is also rather easy (and a good test for
your build environment) to build them yourself.


P.S. Please quote properly: only cite parts of a mail that you're
referring to, and don't reply above the quoted text. Thank you.

HTH,
Michael

-- 
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org  | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Nathan Summers]

On 9/28/05, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:56:12AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
> do not count on the user base being only as you defined it here.
>
> if you do not want sarcasm or even honest requests for good development
> style, please post these questions on either the gimp user list or the
> gimp on windows user list.

There is no longer a gimp on windows mailing list, and this isn't a
user list question.

> the project historically does not want the type of help you described.
> only if you believe everything that you read is this not still the case.

What?  "Customer service" is exactly the type of thing that we need help with.

Rockwalrus
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Tor Lillqvist]

Lance Dockins writes:
 > 1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows 

Yes. Personally I have so far not really been interested in Python and
haven't attempted to build the Python scripting support. But others
have it working.

 > AND is it even necessary to build GIMP?

No.

 > 2) Where do I install/unzip the all the auto tools?  Should I just unzip 
 > them to a location in MinGW and use the export command to include those 
 > directories?  I'm assuming that I don't need a special Win32 build of 
 > these tools so I've just downloaded them from their respective 
 > locations.

Hmm, you downloaded the auto* sources, or ready-built packages (from
where?)?  Anyway, you can install them (after building them) anywhere,
as long as the executable commands are found in PATH. GIMP HEAD
requires newer autotools than what's in the MSYS-DTK package,
unfortunately, so I guess you really need to build them yourself. (I
don't recall which one of the autotools it is that's too old in
MSYS. Probably automake?)

--tml

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Michael Schumacher]

Nathan Summers wrote:
> On 9/28/05, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>if you do not want sarcasm or even honest requests for good development
>>style, please post these questions on either the gimp user list or the
>>gimp on windows user list.
> 
> There is no longer a gimp on windows mailing list,

Well, for a list that doesn't exist it is pretty active...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gimpwin-users/


HTH,
Michael

-- 
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org  | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de
Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org |
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Tor Lillqvist]

 > > There is no longer a gimp on windows mailing list,

 > Well, for a list that doesn't exist it is pretty active...
 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gimpwin-users/

I guess rockwalrus meant there is no *developer-oriented*
Windows-specific GIMP (or GTK+) list. That's true.

--tml

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Nathan Summers]

On 9/28/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathan Summers wrote:

> > There is no longer a gimp on windows mailing list,
>
> Well, for a list that doesn't exist it is pretty active...
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gimpwin-users/

That is not the list that no longer exists.  :)

Rockwalrus
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I was asking more generic questions because I was looking for more
> generic answers.  I just wanted to know if missing DLL's was a normal
> scenario in Win32 environments.  Since you clearly know that it's not,
> you've jumped ahead of me to asking which DLL's were missing.  Since I
> don't know (I didn't write them all down) I'll have to tell you next
> time I compile.  Instead, I offered all the information I had.  As far
> as your "crystal ball" comment, I'd say that was a bit uncalled for.
> You could have just as easily asked for more information without being
> biting and sarcastic.  You, Sven, of all people should know that
> flipant biting sarcasm is a great way to discourage people from taking
> up GIMP or otherwise contributing to it. 

I didn't mean to be sarcastic nor did I try to humiliate anyone. Sorry
if you misunderstood my attempt to help you. Next time I will add more
sugar when replying to your mails.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:56:12AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
> Sven Neumann wrote:
> >And if you ask, please describe your problems in detail. I
> >have left my crystal ball at home today so I really can't figure out
> >what "some missing key libraries at the end of the build" are.
> >  
> I was asking more generic questions because I was looking for more 
> generic answers.  I just wanted to know if missing DLL's was a normal 
> scenario in Win32 environments.  Since you clearly know that it's not, 
> you've jumped ahead of me to asking which DLL's were missing.  Since I 
> don't know (I didn't write them all down) I'll have to tell you next 
> time I compile.  Instead, I offered all the information I had.  As far 
> as your "crystal ball" comment, I'd say that was a bit uncalled for.  
> You could have just as easily asked for more information without being 
> biting and sarcastic.  You, Sven, of all people should know that flipant 
> biting sarcasm is a great way to discourage people from taking up GIMP 
> or otherwise contributing to it. 
> 
> What if someone considering the possibility of contributing to GIMP read 
> that post?  They probably would think twice at that point for fear of 
> being publicly humiliated for asking a question.  Don't get me wrong, I 
> greatly respect your contributions to GIMP and I'm sure it's frustrating 
> answering all of these types of questions.  In fact, I know so.  My 
> greatest strength is customer service, sales, and otherwise dealing with 
> people so I know how difficult it can be.  Let me just put it this way.  
> The ONLY reason people are using or contributing to GIMP is because they 
> have problems.  Specifically, they have a need for an image design 
> program that's both powerful and inexpensive and GIMP meets that need.  
> I'm having COMPILE problems WITH GIMP.  There's really no difference.  
> People use software, ask questions, etc because they have problems.  How 
> you handle those problems WILL determine the success of the project - 
> particularly if you have such an influential position with the project.

Do you think an open source project is better served by having primary
developers handhold everyone that comes along through basic problem solving
skills, or using that time to implement new features or fix bugs?

Keeping track of what you did is a rather basic step when diagnosing
problems with software. There is a certain comptency level assumed when
you try to build GIMP. You didn't live up to it, so don't whine about
the resultant response (which really wasn't that bad, although terse).

It's also pretty rude to make blanket statements about the motivations
of contributors. You don't speak for everyone.

-Yosh
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[lode leroy]

I also noticed the missing DLL's while compiling gimp with MSYS/MinGW

In fact, what happens is that when linking with ZLIB.DLL,
the exe expects ZLIB-1.DLL instead of ZLIB1.DLL. (or vice-versa).
I copied the names that were closest to the ones expected...

   48793 Aug 24  2002 regex.dll
   48793 Aug 24  2002 libregex.dll
   70656 Dec 13  2003 zlib1.dll
   70656 Dec 13  2003 zlib-1.dll
  460800 May  9  2004 freetype6.dll
  460800 May  9  2004 freetype-6.dll
  203264 Dec  4  2004 libpng13.dll
  203264 Dec  4  2004 libpng.dll
  127488 May 15 14:08 jpeg62.dll
  127488 May 15 14:08 jpeg-62.dll

So the "missing dll's" in question are a build-environment
issue, and not a gimp-compilation issue...

So the suggestion to copy dll's from the previous stable
version wasn't that bad a suggestion either...

it would have prevented a lot of confusion if the names
of the dll's were listed  ...

of course it would be nice to have those resolved too...


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[jernej]

On Monday, October 3, 2005, 16:49:59, lode leroy wrote:

> So the "missing dll's" in question are a build-environment
> issue, and not a gimp-compilation issue...

Just make sure you use the correct import libraries.

-- 
< Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >

You never catch on until after the test.
   -- Law of Algebra

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Tor Lillqvist]

lode leroy writes:
 > In fact, what happens is that when linking with ZLIB.DLL,
 > the exe expects ZLIB-1.DLL instead of ZLIB1.DLL. (or vice-versa).

The official zlib dll is called zlib1.dll. Any other name means it is
not official. "Official" as in directly from real maintainer of
zlib. As the actual maintainer of zlib distributes Win32 zlib
binaries, I fail to see any reason why one would want to use anybody
else's version. I have only zlib1.dll on my system.

Don't know about the other examples you list. Presumably caused by
confusion at the "gnuwin32" (not related to GNU) site. You really
should try to find a coherent set of interdependent packages. Is it so
that the GTK+ binaries I depend on differently named DLLs than what
gnuwin32 currently distribute? Argh, I just hate that kind of
instability.

--tml

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[lode leroy]

From: Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lode leroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:48:10 +0300

lode leroy writes:
 > In fact, what happens is that when linking with ZLIB.DLL,
 > the exe expects ZLIB-1.DLL instead of ZLIB1.DLL. (or vice-versa).

The official zlib dll is called zlib1.dll. Any other name means it is
not official. "Official" as in directly from real maintainer of
zlib. As the actual maintainer of zlib distributes Win32 zlib
binaries, I fail to see any reason why one would want to use anybody
else's version. I have only zlib1.dll on my system.


I agree with you Tor, but as the original poster wrote,
it is very difficult to set up a build enviroment with everything
correct to compile gimp (or other gtk based software for that matter)

Libraries and dependencies are changing, and the available binaries
are sometimes not correctly packaged with missing or incorrect .m4 or .pc 
files
(especially the fontconfig and freefont,i.e. the one's you don't distribute 
:-)


The thing is that for compiling gimp from cvs, you need quite some expertise
in the autotools, libtool, aclocal, pkg-config etc to fix those
not-100%-working-together- distributed binaries...

Would it be feasible to create a big zip-file that contains everything for 
gimp

for download?


--tml




___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Tor Lillqvist]

lode leroy writes:
 > The thing is that for compiling gimp from cvs, you need quite some expertise
 > in the autotools, libtool, aclocal, pkg-config etc to fix those
 > not-100%-working-together- distributed binaries...

 > Would it be feasible to create a big zip-file that contains everything for 
 > gimp for download?

It would be possible, but wouldn't such a zipfile just create open up
the possibility for even more confusion when there would then be yet
another distribution of these libs? (A long time ago I *did*
distribute self-built jpeg, tiff, zlib and whatnot, but stopped doing
that as there were other distributions, too, that were just as good,
or even more directly from the source, like zlib.)

--tml

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

Tor Lillqvist wrote:

It would be possible, but wouldn't such a zipfile just create open up
the possibility for even more confusion when there would then be yet
another distribution of these libs? 

Tor,
   You're right.  Alternative packages always open up the possibility 
for more confusion when there are already so many Win32 binaries.  
Honestly though, I'd be willing to accept such a potential for confusion 
to find a packaged set of reliable Win32 binaries that would work with 
each other in a MinGW/Msys environment and provide a means of compiling 
GIMP from CVS/Tarball on Win32 without having to spend hours 
researching, compiling, and downloading to get the environment setup 
correctly.  For that matter, when I'm looking for reliable Win32 
binaries, your packages are amongst the top 3 I would trust.  Of course, 
finding such a zip anywhere would nearly be a godsend regardless of who 
compiled and packaged the binaries just because of the fact that it's so 
hard to find all the binaries you need in a Win32 environment in the 
first place. 

I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make 
this easier, but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do 
so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the 
professional world.  My guess is that's the case for many Windows users 
who would like to be able to compile from tarball/CVS without such 
hassles as we've described here.  Grant that I don't speak for everyone 
using Win32, but I'd imagine you'd see a positive reception from such an 
endeavor from more than one Win32 user.

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Michael Schumacher]

> Von: "lode leroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
> >From: Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "lode leroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> >Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
> >Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:48:10 +0300
> >
> >lode leroy writes:
> >  > In fact, what happens is that when linking with ZLIB.DLL,
> >  > the exe expects ZLIB-1.DLL instead of ZLIB1.DLL. (or vice-versa).
> >
> >The official zlib dll is called zlib1.dll. Any other name means it is
> >not official. "Official" as in directly from real maintainer of
> >zlib. As the actual maintainer of zlib distributes Win32 zlib
> >binaries, I fail to see any reason why one would want to use anybody
> >else's version. I have only zlib1.dll on my system.
> 
> I agree with you Tor, but as the original poster wrote,
> it is very difficult to set up a build enviroment with everything
> correct to compile gimp (or other gtk based software for that matter)
> 
> Libraries and dependencies are changing, and the available binaries
> are sometimes not correctly packaged with missing or incorrect .m4 or .pc 
> files
> (especially the fontconfig and freefont,i.e. the one's you don't
> distribute 
> :-)

We should then let the packagers know... maybe they just don't get the right
hints? For example, gnuwin32 had these naming problems, and there is a way
to report bugs. I recall that the .a files of libxml2 were not usable with
the MinGW linker, this could be reported also...



HTH,
Michael

-- 
5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Michael Schumacher]

> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> On Monday, October 3, 2005, 16:49:59, lode leroy wrote:
> 
> > So the "missing dll's" in question are a build-environment
> > issue, and not a gimp-compilation issue...
> 
> Just make sure you use the correct import libraries.

It is also possible to create them yourself, from the DLL files. The MinGW
docs contain a section about this (using pexports and dlltool, IIRC).


HTH,
Michael

-- 
5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Carol Spears]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:04:42AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
> 
> I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make 
> this easier, but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do 
> so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the 
> professional world.  My guess is that's the case for many Windows users 
> who would like to be able to compile from tarball/CVS without such 
> hassles as we've described here.  Grant that I don't speak for everyone 
> using Win32, but I'd imagine you'd see a positive reception from such an 
> endeavor from more than one Win32 user.
> 
this is so interesting.  Win32 has succeeded in making linux expensive.

you are asking that the Win32 environment not work the way it was
designed to work -- at least i think this is what you are saying.

i am very impressed that it was able to make free software expensive,
this is a simply amazing accomplishment!

carol

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[jernej]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 18:11:36, Michael Schumacher wrote:

> It is also possible to create them yourself, from the DLL files. The MinGW
> docs contain a section about this (using pexports and dlltool, IIRC).

Didn't you write instructions for this in the wiki?


-- 
< Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >

Creativity varies inversely with the number of cooks involved with the broth.
   -- Fitz-Gibbon's Law

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

this is so interesting.  Win32 has succeeded in making linux expensive.

you are asking that the Win32 environment not work the way it was
designed to work -- at least i think this is what you are saying.

i am very impressed that it was able to make free software expensive,
this is a simply amazing accomplishment!
  

Carol,
Where in my e-mail did your read that *Linux *was going to cost me 
money?  Read that sentence again.  Or, better yet, I'll quote it.  "I 
should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make 
this easier, *but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do 
so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the 
professional world.*"  Did I say that the money, time, and hardware I 
was going to invest was going to be invested in buying Linux or did I 
just say that I would have to invest money, time, and hardware into a 
Linux setup? Here's a few things that cost money that fit perfectly into 
that sentence.


   * Time
   * A spare hard drive
   * A reliable partition manager (instead of a drive)
   * Perhaps an alternate computer entirely
   * Potential other hardware for those components that Linux drivers
 don't function well on.

Before I sign off on this, let me quote the second half of that sentence 
again.  *"*But I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do so 
*without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the 
professional world.*" So that pretty much eliminates installing over top 
of my current OS. 


Lance


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Carol Spears]

yeah, i read something that seemed as if it was too expensive to use
free software and a sane build environment.  i have been wrong before.

carol

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to
> make this easier, but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware
> to do so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use
> in the professional world.  My guess is that's the case for many
> Windows users who would like to be able to compile from tarball/CVS
> without such hassles as we've described here.  Grant that I don't
> speak for everyone using Win32, but I'd imagine you'd see a positive
> reception from such an endeavor from more than one Win32 user.

Why would users want to compile development snapshots? I see the point
in making it easier for people to develop on Windows and I would also
like to see some features being tested earlier on all platforms, but
still fail to see why users would want to compile a 2.3.x release.
They can use the binary packages.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Hal V. Engel]

On Tuesday 04 October 2005 09:58 am, Carol Spears wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:04:42AM -0500, Lance Dockins wrote:
> > I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make
> > this easier, but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do
> > so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the
> > professional world.  My guess is that's the case for many Windows users
> > who would like to be able to compile from tarball/CVS without such
> > hassles as we've described here.  Grant that I don't speak for everyone
> > using Win32, but I'd imagine you'd see a positive reception from such an
> > endeavor from more than one Win32 user.
>
> this is so interesting.  Win32 has succeeded in making linux expensive.
>
> you are asking that the Win32 environment not work the way it was
> designed to work -- at least i think this is what you are saying.
>
> i am very impressed that it was able to make free software expensive,
> this is a simply amazing accomplishment!
>
> carol
>

Carol was a little over the top but is making a valid point.  Windows and 
Linux can live on the same machine with no problems.  So you do not have to 
"destroy the Wind32 environment".  Many of the folks on this list, myself 
included,  have both Linux and Windows running on the machines they use on a 
daily basis.  If all you need is enough of a Linux installation to get GIMP 
to build and to test GIMP then the amount of diskspace needed to do this is 
fairly small and you can free up a partition on your existing hard drive(s) 
to do this.  In addition, most Linux distros are free.  So this clearly does 
not take any money or new/additional hardware.  

The real issue is time.  Which is a valid concern but it might actually take 
less time and effort to get a working Linux environment than to mess around 
getting Windows setup to compile GIMP since most Linux distros will do this 
out of the box or very nearly so.  Some linux distros will do a minimal 
install in as little as a half hour.

Hal
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Lance Dockins]

Hal V. Engel wrote:
If all you need is enough of a Linux installation to get GIMP 
to build and to test GIMP then the amount of diskspace needed to do this is 
fairly small and you can free up a partition on your existing hard drive(s) 
to do this.  
Good point.  I thought of doing this myself, but in the past I've had to 
repartition my hard drive before a Linux install.  Do most Linux distros 
now come equipped with a partition manager that can handle an NT 
partition and successfully resize it without destroying it?  When I've 
previously done this, I've had to use Partition Magic which is the best 
proprietary software for this sort of thing, but even it had bugs in 
some prior versions that would crash an NT partition.  If most Linux 
distros now come equipped with such a partition manager and I can trust 
that my NT partition will safely remain intact, I may reconsider my 
former statement. But my biggest concern is that, at present, without a 
partition manager, I've still got to invest another $50 on top of losses 
due to time.  Not that that's a huge investment, but I've got other 
financial priorities that exceed an investment in a Partition Manager.  
Thanks in advance for your feedback.


   Lance
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Hal V. Engel]

On Tuesday 04 October 2005 02:28 pm, Lance Dockins wrote:
> Hal V. Engel wrote:
> > If all you need is enough of a Linux installation to get GIMP
> > to build and to test GIMP then the amount of diskspace needed to do this
> > is fairly small and you can free up a partition on your existing hard
> > drive(s) to do this.
>
> Good point.  I thought of doing this myself, but in the past I've had to
> repartition my hard drive before a Linux install.  Do most Linux distros
> now come equipped with a partition manager that can handle an NT
> partition and successfully resize it without destroying it?  When I've
> previously done this, I've had to use Partition Magic which is the best
> proprietary software for this sort of thing, but even it had bugs in
> some prior versions that would crash an NT partition.  If most Linux
> distros now come equipped with such a partition manager and I can trust
> that my NT partition will safely remain intact, I may reconsider my
> former statement. But my biggest concern is that, at present, without a
> partition manager, I've still got to invest another $50 on top of losses
> due to time.  Not that that's a huge investment, but I've got other
> financial priorities that exceed an investment in a Partition Manager.
> Thanks in advance for your feedback.
>
> Lance

Yes most distros come with a partition manager that can handle this.  Of 
course, you should back things up just in case and it is a good idea to 
defrag the partition you are shrinking before you start.  I have also used 
the partition manager in boot-it which you can get as a trial version for $0.

Hal
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[michael chang]

On 10/4/05, Lance Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > this is so interesting.  Win32 has succeeded in making linux expensive.
> >
> > you are asking that the Win32 environment not work the way it was
> > designed to work -- at least i think this is what you are saying.
> >
> > i am very impressed that it was able to make free software expensive,
> > this is a simply amazing accomplishment!
> >
> Carol,
>  Where in my e-mail did your read that *Linux *was going to cost me
> money?  Read that sentence again.  Or, better yet, I'll quote it.  "I
> should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make
> this easier, *but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do
> so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the
> professional world.*"  Did I say that the money, time, and hardware I
> was going to invest was going to be invested in buying Linux or did I
> just say that I would have to invest money, time, and hardware into a
> Linux setup? Here's a few things that cost money that fit perfectly into
> that sentence.
>
> * Time
> * A spare hard drive
> * A reliable partition manager (instead of a drive)
> * Perhaps an alternate computer entirely
> * Potential other hardware for those components that Linux drivers
>   don't function well on.
>
> Before I sign off on this, let me quote the second half of that sentence
> again.  *"*But I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do so
> *without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the
> professional world.*" So that pretty much eliminates installing over top
> of my current OS.

Nonsense.  Debian's installer can resize ALL Win32 partitions (NTFS +
FAT) and make room for itself nondestructively.

--
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[michael chang]

On 10/4/05, Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> lode leroy writes:
>  > The thing is that for compiling gimp from cvs, you need quite some 
> expertise
>  > in the autotools, libtool, aclocal, pkg-config etc to fix those
>  > not-100%-working-together- distributed binaries...
>
>  > Would it be feasible to create a big zip-file that contains everything for
>  > gimp for download?
>
> It would be possible, but wouldn't such a zipfile just create open up
> the possibility for even more confusion when there would then be yet
> another distribution of these libs? (A long time ago I *did*
> distribute self-built jpeg, tiff, zlib and whatnot, but stopped doing
> that as there were other distributions, too, that were just as good,
> or even more directly from the source, like zlib.)

Since you've found these better sources, I know it'd be a pain, but
could you include links to them somewhere?  That way, we can use the
same DLLs built that you do.  (I'm presuming you don't already; if you
do, my apologies.)

--
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Leon Brooks]

On Wednesday 05 October 2005 01:50, Lance Dockins wrote:
>     * Time
>     * A spare hard drive
>     * A reliable partition manager (instead of a drive)
>     * Perhaps an alternate computer entirely
>     * Potential other hardware for those components that
>       Linux drivers don't function well on.

If you're in Australia, put a grant proposal to Linux Australia 
(www.linux.org.au). They'd probably be quite pleased to support GIMP 
development in this manner. The computer recycling places (like 
Computer Angels in WA and ComputerBank in Victoria) would also look 
favourably upon donating a machine to this cause.

Cheers; Leon

-- 
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/   Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://slpwa.asn.au/Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://osia.net.au/ Member, Open Source Industry Australia
http://linux.org.au/Member, Linux Australia
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Leon Brooks]

On Tuesday 04 October 2005 16:37, lode leroy wrote:
> Would it be feasible to create a big zip-file that contains
> everything for gimp for download?

If you call it "GIMP-toaster", many people will instantly recognise its 
purpose.

Cheers; Leon

-- 
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/   Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://slpwa.asn.au/Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://osia.net.au/ Member, Open Source Industry Australia
http://linux.org.au/Member, Linux Australia
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Leon Brooks]

On Wednesday 05 October 2005 03:11, Hal V. Engel wrote:
> Windows and
> Linux can live on the same machine with no problems.  So you do not
> have to "destroy the Wind32 environment".  Many of the folks on this
> list, myself included,  have both Linux and Windows running on the
> machines they use on a daily basis.  If all you need is enough of a
> Linux installation to get GIMP to build and to test GIMP then the
> amount of diskspace needed to do this is fairly small and you can
> free up a partition on your existing hard drive(s) to do this.  In
> addition, most Linux distros are free.  So this clearly does not take
> any money or new/additional hardware.

> The real issue is time.  Which is a valid concern but it might
> actually take less time and effort to get a working Linux environment
> than to mess around getting Windows setup to compile GIMP since most
> Linux distros will do this out of the box or very nearly so.  Some
> linux distros will do a minimal install in as little as a half hour.

Lance, please pardon the distro-centric plug, but Mandriva Linux will 
resize partitions to suit (doing a defrag before you boot the installer 
helps), is very easy to set up and use (lots of nice GUI helpers), free 
to download and either of LILO or GRUB are more than adequate as boot 
managers for the complete system.

  http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%222005-Limited-Edition-Download%22

Run this short script to set up a user's account for building RPMS:

http://mandrake.cyberknights.com.au/setup4rpm.sh

Install a source RPM for GIMP as that user, then copy a development 
tarball into rpm/SOURCES/ then tweak (with a text editor) the specfile 
at rpm/SPECS/gimp.spec to refer to it instead of the original, and 
you're away.

As Hal says, your main issue is going to be time. If you don't have an 
hour to stumble fearfully through a Linux installation, will you have 
time to do serious development?

Cheers; Leon

--
http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication
http://plug.linux.org.au/   Member, Perth Linux User Group
http://slpwa.asn.au/Member, Linux Professionals WA
http://osia.net.au/ Member, Open Source Industry Australia
http://linux.org.au/Member, Linux Australia
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[lode leroy]

When installing Python from Python-2.4.1.msi,
the headers are not in C:/Python24/include/python24
but in C:/Python24/include.

This fixes that problem.

--- pythondev.m4.orig   2005-10-05 17:29:40.015625000 -0700
+++ pythondev.m42005-10-05 17:27:01.609375000 -0700
@@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ AC_MSG_CHECKING(for headers required to
dnl deduce PYTHON_INCLUDES
py_prefix=`$PYTHON -c "import sys; print sys.prefix"`
py_exec_prefix=`$PYTHON -c "import sys; print sys.exec_prefix"`
-PYTHON_INCLUDES="-I${py_prefix}/include/python${PYTHON_VERSION}"
+PYTHON_INCLUDES="-I${py_prefix}/include/python${PYTHON_VERSION} 
-I${py_prefix}/

include"
if test "$py_prefix" != "$py_exec_prefix"; then
-  PYTHON_INCLUDES="$PYTHON_INCLUDES 
-I${py_exec_prefix}/include/python${PYTHON_

VERSION}"
+  PYTHON_INCLUDES="$PYTHON_INCLUDES 
-I${py_exec_prefix}/include/python${PYTHON_

VERSION} -I${py_exec_prefix}/include"
fi
AC_SUBST(PYTHON_INCLUDES)
dnl check if the headers exist:


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4

[Manish Singh]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 05:28:49PM +0200, lode leroy wrote:
> When installing Python from Python-2.4.1.msi,
> the headers are not in C:/Python24/include/python24
> but in C:/Python24/include.

Well, this is fixed differently in 2.3.4. I'm assuming you're using
something older and neglected to change the subject...

-Yosh
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4 crash on winxp

[Paolo Magnoli]

Hi, I just compiled Gimp 2.3.4 on winxp mingw but when I try to run it I get
a windows with this error:

"Pango-ERROR**: file shape.c: line 75 (pango_shape): assertion failed:
(glyphs->num_glyphs > 0) aborting ..."

then it closes down.
My GTK libs are:
glib-2.8.2 glib-dev-2.8.2 gtk+-2.8.4 gtk+-dev-2.8.4 pango-1.10.0
pango-dev-1.10.0 atk-1.10.1 atk-dev-1.10.1 cairo-1.0.0 cairo-dev-1.0.0

And other mingw packages are:
libpng-1.2.8-bin libpng-1.2.8-dep libpng-1.2.8-lib jpeg-6b-4-bin
jpeg-6b-4-dep jpeg-6b-4-lib tiff-3.7.2-bin tiff-3.7.2-lib freetype-2.1.8-bin
freetype-2.1.8-lib zlib-1.2.2-bin zlib-1.2.2-lib libgw32c-0.4-lib
libiconv-1.8-1-bin libiconv-1.8-1-lib

Hope you'll find a way to solve this.
Thanks in advance

paolo

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4]

[Bill Kendrick]

Lance wrote:
> * A spare hard drive
> * A reliable partition manager (instead of a drive)
> * Perhaps an alternate computer entirely

Just to be a weenie, I'll mention live CDs like Knoppix.
Or even USB-bootable systems.  (I got to play with one of those this past
weekend at a friend's workplace.  Full desktop Linux system stuck in a
bootable 1GB USB memory stick.  Sweet!)

-bill!
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4 crash on winxp

[John Cupitt]

On 9/30/05, Paolo Magnoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I just compiled Gimp 2.3.4 on winxp mingw but when I try to run it I get
> a windows with this error:
>
> "Pango-ERROR**: file shape.c: line 75 (pango_shape): assertion failed:
> (glyphs->num_glyphs > 0) aborting ..."
>
> then it closes down.
> My GTK libs are:
> glib-2.8.2 glib-dev-2.8.2 gtk+-2.8.4 gtk+-dev-2.8.4 pango-1.10.0
> pango-dev-1.10.0 atk-1.10.1 atk-dev-1.10.1 cairo-1.0.0 cairo-dev-1.0.0

You pango and atk seem very old, but your glib and gtk seem too new.
I'd try again with the packages on Tor's download page:

http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/downloads.html

John
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

R: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4 crash on winxp

[Paolo Magnoli]

Sorry but my pango is pango-1.10.0 when Thor's one is pango-1.8.2, so mine
should be more recent.
Regards

paolo

> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: John Cupitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Inviato: venerdì 30 settembre 2005 11.18
> A: Paolo Magnoli
> Cc: GIMPDev
> Oggetto: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4 crash on winxp
>
>
> On 9/30/05, Paolo Magnoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, I just compiled Gimp 2.3.4 on winxp mingw but when I try to
> run it I get
> > a windows with this error:
> >
> > "Pango-ERROR**: file shape.c: line 75 (pango_shape): assertion failed:
> > (glyphs->num_glyphs > 0) aborting ..."
> >
> > then it closes down.
> > My GTK libs are:
> > glib-2.8.2 glib-dev-2.8.2 gtk+-2.8.4 gtk+-dev-2.8.4 pango-1.10.0
> > pango-dev-1.10.0 atk-1.10.1 atk-dev-1.10.1 cairo-1.0.0 cairo-dev-1.0.0
>
> You pango and atk seem very old, but your glib and gtk seem too new.
> I'd try again with the packages on Tor's download page:
>
> http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/downloads.html
>
> John
>

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4 crash on winxp

[Tor Lillqvist]

John Cupitt writes:
 > > glib-2.8.2 glib-dev-2.8.2 gtk+-2.8.4 gtk+-dev-2.8.4 pango-1.10.0
 > > pango-dev-1.10.0 atk-1.10.1 atk-dev-1.10.1 cairo-1.0.0 cairo-dev-1.0.0

 > You pango and atk seem very old, but your glib and gtk seem too new.

No, atk 1.10.1 and Pango 1.10.0 are quite new, the latest
versions. (Actually, for performance reasons, one should make sure to
use the latest pango 1.10.0 snapshot (20050922) from the ftp.gtk.org
site.) (GTK+ 2.8 won't even work with any older Pango.) They are
available from ftp.gtk.org but not really "advertised" yet on the GTK+
for Win32 download page on the GIMP site.

Sigh, I had hoped that the infamous "shape.c: line 75" assertion
failure would have been a thing of the past with GTK+ 2.8 and Pango
1.10. But apparently not. Try the usual stuff, mainly try without the
ms-windows theme ("wimp"). (Edit the etc/gtk-2.0/gtkrc file.) Or check
what your default font in the Display Properties is, try changing that
to for instance Arial.

--tml

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4]

[michael chang]

On 10/4/05, Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lance wrote:
> > * A spare hard drive
> > * A reliable partition manager (instead of a drive)
> > * Perhaps an alternate computer entirely
>
> Just to be a weenie, I'll mention live CDs like Knoppix.

There'll be a DVD version too, at one point...

> Or even USB-bootable systems.  (I got to play with one of those this past
> weekend at a friend's workplace.  Full desktop Linux system stuck in a
> bootable 1GB USB memory stick.  Sweet!)

Just to note, live systems on optical media won't preserve data
between reboots without storing it somewhere, e.g. on a file or
partition (Knoppix does this with some scripts somewhere IIRC).  I
don't know about USB systems.

They're fun to play with, of course, but doing serious work is usually
easiest with a perminant install; you only need ~1-3 GB to get the
base and GIMP running (I'd suggest more if you're going to do major
work in it).  Note that NTFS support in linux is patchy at best,
although FAT is supported pretty well.  (So if you're moving files,
you may want a small FAT partition to move stuff in between Lin/Win.)

--
~Mike
 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4]

[Bill Kendrick]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 08:08:45PM -0400, michael chang wrote:
> Just to note, live systems on optical media won't preserve data
> between reboots without storing it somewhere, e.g. on a file or
> partition (Knoppix does this with some scripts somewhere IIRC).  I
> don't know about USB systems.

Well, the USB system was writable because, well, it's just flash memory. :)

-bill!
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: R: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4 crash on winxp

[John Cupitt]

On 9/30/05, Paolo Magnoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry but my pango is pango-1.10.0 when Thor's one is pango-1.8.2, so mine
> should be more recent.

D'oh! Sorry. So it sounds like a pango fonts problem. Do any of the
pango examples work?
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer