Re: [Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
Hello erroneus, On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:02:29 +0200 erroneus for...@gimpusers.com wrote: I've been looking all over but there are just no CentOS (or RHEL for that matter) packages for the latest version of GiMP. Compiling from source doesn't even seem to be a good option either as it looks as if it will break the whole OS the way things are set up. Why would it? Just compile using ./configure --prefix=/opt/gimp-2.8.x (for example) and install under a separate prefix. No need to install directly under /usr . Hope it helps. Regards, Shlomi Fish This is no way to build an application! Applications and OSes should never be tied so closely together. I like GiMP 2.8 for Windows a lot and would prefer to run it under CentOS as that is my main desktop OS. I have given up on Fedora because of the unholy abomination GNOME has become. What is a CentOS user to do? We want a stable and consistent OS and user experience without having to reload/update everything after less than a year, and if I want to run a current version of Libre Office, there is no trouble. I can do that. If I want a current version of Firefox, I can do that. But GiMP? Nope! Why would developers choose to shut us out like this? -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ My Favourite FOSS - http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/favourite/ ew73 VB.NET is all of the fun of enforced privacy OO with all of the power of BASIC. — Freenode’s #perl Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
Hello erroneus, On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:02:29 +0200 erroneus for...@gimpusers.com wrote: I've been looking all over but there are just no CentOS (or RHEL for that matter) packages for the latest version of GiMP. Compiling from source doesn't even seem to be a good option either as it looks as if it will break the whole OS the way things are set up. Why would it? Just compile using ./configure --prefix=/opt/gimp-2.8.x (for example) and install under a separate prefix. No need to install directly under /usr . Hope it helps. Regards, Shlomi Fish This is no way to build an application! Applications and OSes should never be tied so closely together. I like GiMP 2.8 for Windows a lot and would prefer to run it under CentOS as that is my main desktop OS. I have given up on Fedora because of the unholy abomination GNOME has become. What is a CentOS user to do? We want a stable and consistent OS and user experience without having to reload/update everything after less than a year, and if I want to run a current version of Libre Office, there is no trouble. I can do that. If I want a current version of Firefox, I can do that. But GiMP? Nope! Why would developers choose to shut us out like this? I checked Distrowatch for Centos:Ridiculous,Their Gimp is at 2.6.9 while the last in the 2,6 series is 2,6.12. I've been using Gentoo since december 2003 after trying a lot of distro's. Go to their website and check out the Handbook. It has a steep learning curve but the reward is commensurate. You'll be able to install and compile anything you may want. Gerard. -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ My Favourite FOSS - http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/favourite/ ew73 VB.NET is all of the fun of enforced privacy OO with all of the power of BASIC. — Freenode’s #perl Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . -- gerard82 (via gimpusers.com) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing
Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some weeks now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments. Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and contra Making the new open/save/export behavior of GIMP 2.8 optional by giving argument abstracts and links to good arguments, i.e. giving references! If there is a good argument, you don't have to fully repeat it, just give a short link and a short abstract (especially if the argument is too bloated or its core is hard to recognize). This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong): ### CONSENSUS: There is no the user. There are all kinds of folks with different habits, workflows. On the one hand, there are heavy-weight workflows. The main characteristic of this kind of workflow is the requirement of closing and re-opening one high quality working copy, and tasks like saving/exporting frequently as both JPEG and XCF, exporting JPEGs for comparisons, possibility to go back and alter steps throughout the whole workflow. The most important aspects of this kind of workflow is preserving image quality and preserving flexibility. On the other hand, there are lightweight workflows. The main characteristic of this kind of workflow is that there is no need for closing and re-opening the image. The most important aspect of this kind of workflow is efficiency. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00014.html The following are the arguments I found so far. Everybody is invited to replace weak arguments by stronger ones or to add missing arguments --just don't forget to give references. ## PRO: * Abstract: The previous file open/save/export behavior met the needs of all users. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-June/msg00228.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00056.html * Abstract: If the Save/Export separation would be the default setting and could be disabled, then every GIMP user could be happy. The heavy-weight workflow users just leave the default setting enabled, and the lightweight workflow users disable it at their own risk. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg8.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00047.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00056.html * Abstract: There is no convincing argument so far to _not_ make this separation optional. It not even seems complicated to implement a switch for this behavior on the technical level. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00025.html * Abstract: A GIMP fork because of such a little change that can be made optional makes no sense. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00064.html ## CONTRA: * Abstract: No. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg9.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00057.html * Abstract: Users who don't like the new open/save/export behavior can use another software than GIMP. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00014.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00045.html * Abstract: Open-source software is a meritocracy, not a democracy. Users who do not implement, should not complain. Stating and explaining opinions is no merit. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00063.html * Abstract: The PRO arguments only reflect the opinion of a few. Therefore this is not important. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00011.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00063.html * Abstract: Everything convincing has been said elsewhere. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00011.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00012.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-July/msg00026.html * Abstract: not the often touted ‘prosumer photo jpeg–to–jpeg’ workflow, because for complying with the GIMP product vision there is no need for optimising this http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification Of course, the mere count of links doesn't say anything. Therefore the argument abstracts should be preferred. If it appears too circumstantial even to give a link to a good argument, this is a direct contradiction to the everything convincing has been said elsewhere argument. A good starting point for finding arguments is the GIMP mailing list archive (haystack): http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/ http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/ - or Google (needle finder) --try it with the site:mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/ or site:mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/ options. -- Johannes ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Re: [Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
Hello gerard82, On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:59:22 +0200 gerard82 for...@gimpusers.com wrote: This is no way to build an application! Applications and OSes should never be tied so closely together. I like GiMP 2.8 for Windows a lot and would prefer to run it under CentOS as that is my main desktop OS. I have given up on Fedora because of the unholy abomination GNOME has become. What is a CentOS user to do? We want a stable and consistent OS and user experience without having to reload/update everything after less than a year, and if I want to run a current version of Libre Office, there is no trouble. I can do that. If I want a current version of Firefox, I can do that. But GiMP? Nope! Why would developers choose to shut us out like this? I checked Distrowatch for Centos:Ridiculous,Their Gimp is at 2.6.9 while the last in the 2,6 series is 2,6.12. I've been using Gentoo since december 2003 after trying a lot of distro's. Go to their website and check out the Handbook. It has a steep learning curve but the reward is commensurate. You'll be able to install and compile anything you may want. Gerard. There are many distributions one can recommend instead of CentOS (and I have my own preference that is not Gentoo) and I'm sure a lot of them have many merits, but the question was asked regarding CentOS and we should stick to providing advice for it. See: http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/web/use-qmail-instead/ Regards, Shlomi Fish P.S: Gentoo is for wimps. Real men use Linux From Scratch! And real programmers use butterflies: http://xkcd.com/378/ ;-) -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ My Public Domain Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/shlomif/ mst I find it’s usually safe to assume that whatever shlomif’s doing, there isn’t a good reason for it. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Johannes wrote: Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some weeks now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments. Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and contra Making the new open/save/export behavior of GIMP 2.8 optional by giving argument abstracts and links to good arguments, i.e. giving references! And what will it be good for? Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, erroneus wrote: But it has revealed what I believe are philisophical flaws in GiMP and/or GNOME which I think should be resolved. You mean that GIMP developers sometimes bump dependencies? We don't do it, because we like annoying people. We do it, because upstream system libraries get important fixes. You may see it as a philosophical flow, but I see it as just another example of duality. How do I get this shared with developers? You already have. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing
Well, that is the question isn't it? On 7/14/2012 7:34 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Johannes wrote: Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some weeks now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments. Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and contra Making the new open/save/export behavior of GIMP 2.8 optional by giving argument abstracts and links to good arguments, i.e. giving references! And what will it be good for? Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing
Am 14.07.2012 16:45, schrieb Chris Mohler: You can: A: Bitch B: Adapt C: Fork I suggest option B or C - they're likely to be the most productive. In fact, I am preparing option B. Precondition for this is a good understanding of what is to be adapted. I don't want my changes to be simply reverted, because I would be a newbie committer and others may like to play power games or something. Don't get me wrong, I want to make things better, not cast perls before people without arguments. -- Johannes ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing
Am 14.07.2012 19:24, schrieb Johannes: not cast perls before people without arguments. ...and no pearls, too. -- Johannes ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing
On 14.07.2012 19:24, Johannes wrote: Am 14.07.2012 16:45, schrieb Chris Mohler: You can: A: Bitch B: Adapt C: Fork I suggest option B or C - they're likely to be the most productive. In fact, I am preparing option B. Precondition for this is a good understanding of what is to be adapted. Your workflow, to the way GIMP 2.8 works now. HTH, Michael ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, erroneus wrote: I want to be able to run my older version of GNOME with a newer version of GiMP. How can I resolve this? If the answer is compiling from source, can I get some hints as to what whole sets of source I need to get and how to go about installing them? I suspect it's all about the command line switches saying something like install everything in /usr/local/gimp-2.8.0 or something to that effect. I suggest you read these instructions (ignore the ubuntu bias); http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu If that's a whole new world, you will find it an interesting learning curve -- Owen ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
I suggest you read these instructions (ignore the ubuntu bias); http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu If that's a whole new world, you will find it an interesting learning curve It's not a whole new world, but it's not something I've done in a long while. I would love it if someone were to explain what everything there does and why they are doing it like that. When I went to compile the things myself, I kept getting gegl and/or bebl versions not correct even though I had just compiled those libraries as the newest. It keeps identifying the other versions I have installed instead. (Would it be best to uninstall those? I suppose I should try) It's nice to have here's what you do but when accompanied with what it means and why, then you have real learning. -- erroneus (via gimpusers.com) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM, erroneus for...@gimpusers.com wrote: I suggest you read these instructions (ignore the ubuntu bias); http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu If that's a whole new world, you will find it an interesting learning curve It's not a whole new world, but it's not something I've done in a long while. I would love it if someone were to explain what everything there does and why they are doing it like that. When I went to compile the things myself, I kept getting gegl and/or bebl versions not correct even though I had just compiled those libraries as the newest. It keeps identifying the other versions I have installed instead. (Would it be best to uninstall those? I suppose I should try) It's nice to have here's what you do but when accompanied with what it means and why, then you have real learning. I think CentOS uses gtk+ 2.x. So you shouldn't have to mess with system files. Suppose you want to build and install Gimp 2.8 in $HOME/opt. So that we don't mess with system libraries ( seems like you have gegl/babl installed already), we will ask Gimp to look somewhere else. Export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/gimp-2.8/lib/pkgconfig:$PKG_CONFIG_PATH Now make babl (which has minimal dependencies. Something like: cd babl ./configure --prefix=$HOME/opt/gimp-2.8 make; make install cd gegl ./configure --prefix=$HOME/opt/gimp-2.8 --disable-docs make; make install cd gimp ./configure --prefix=$HOME/opt/gimp-2.8 make; make install Now you should have gimp 2.8 installed in $HOME/opt/gimp-2.8 To run gimp, simply do: $HOME/opt/gimp-2.8/bin/gimp and you should be good to go. Hope that helps. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu Just so you know... I just removed the BABL and GEGL libraries from my system and attempted to build exactly as the instructions say I should... well, it says: checking for GLIB - version = 2.28.0... no *** Could not run GLIB test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the *** exact error that occured. This usually means GLIB is incorrectly installed. configure: error: *** GLIB 2.28.0 or better is required. The latest version of *** GLIB is always available from ftp://ftp.gtk.org/. I think I will give this a try after dinner... the wife' strongly hinting that I should eat. I wonder if I will be able to build a conflicting version of GLIB in the /opt/gimp-2.8 tree without other issues. -- erroneus (via gimpusers.com) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing
On 7/14/2012 04:45, Chris Mohler wrote: On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Johannes anonfo...@gmx.org wrote: This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong): ### CORRECTED There are a handful of people developing GIMP. They are following this: http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification Based on this: http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign You can: A: Bitch B: Adapt C: Fork I suggest option B or C - they're likely to be the most productive. Thanks for the refs. It makes for better understanding. In studying the specs something I don't understand is why there is an apparent distinction being made between file open behavior and file save. It seems to me that opening vice import has many of the same issues/ useability requirements that should be considered. In particular, a problem I encounter with workflow in GIMP is that GIMP doesn't really handle (AFAIK) meta-data embedded with image raster data in file formats (in my case, Tiff tags). Treating import in a manner analogous to export (ie, import and export may cause loss of data) seems reasonable (if only to me of course). scott s. . ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu Just so you know... I just removed the BABL and GEGL libraries from my system and attempted to build exactly as the instructions say I should... well, it says: checking for GLIB - version = 2.28.0... no *** Could not run GLIB test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the *** exact error that occured. This usually means GLIB is incorrectly installed. configure: error: *** GLIB 2.28.0 or better is required. The latest version of *** GLIB is always available from ftp://ftp.gtk.org/. I think I will give this a try after dinner... the wife' strongly hinting that I should eat. I wonder if I will be able to build a conflicting version of GLIB in the /opt/gimp-2.8 tree without other issues. You need to build things in the selected build directory, babl, gegl and gimp If glib and gtk versions are too low, you need to build those and their dependancies in the selected directory. DO NOT BUILD IN /usr or /usr/local Make sure that the console you are working is the console that you have exported the paths as per the gimp users tutorial. That way, looking for libraries ensures the first searched path is your build directory, not /usr or /usr/local -- Owen ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument consolidation and referencing
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 4:56 AM, scott s. wrote: It seems to me that opening vice import has many of the same issues/ useability requirements that should be considered. In particular, a problem I encounter with workflow in GIMP is that GIMP doesn't really handle (AFAIK) meta-data embedded with image raster data in file formats (in my case, Tiff tags). Reading metadata from TIFF has nothing to do with opening, importing, saving or exporting. GIMP currently relies on libtiff library which doesn't read or save embedded metadata. That's all :) Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - 2.8 Usability Drop
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:46:00 +0800 From: ngoonee.t...@gmail.com To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] Gimp - 2.8 Usability Drop what 'community' and 'user base' is this that you speak of? All I see is some individuals with individual opinions and a varying lack of courtesy in presenting their opinions. You mean beyond the extent of these mailing lists, right? I'm sure there are forums and IRC channels where you can find a wide range of GIMP users to discuss things with, but speaking for myself, I attend neither of such venues :( And the mailing lists do only encompass a small share of users. -- Stratadrake strata_ran...@hotmail.com Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth. ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] CentOS packanges for 2.8?
You need to build things in the selected build directory, babl, gegl and gimp If glib and gtk versions are too low, you need to build those and their dependancies in the selected directory. DO NOT BUILD IN /usr or /usr/local Make sure that the console you are working is the console that you have exported the paths as per the gimp users tutorial. That way, looking for libraries ensures the first searched path is your build directory, not /usr or /usr/local Got it... I'm currently wallowing in dependency hell. Each thing needs another thing... so far I have downloaded the following: cairo, pango, gdk-pixbuf, gtk+, atk, libffi and glib along with the previous babl and gegl and now it's telling me I will need poppler and pixman as well. The rabbit hole goes deeper and deeper and the passages ever winding. I just want to make graphics... you know? This stuff is making me tired and my eyes dry. -- erroneus (via gimpusers.com) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
