May be I shot too high on porting everything to Qt. But someone else thing
that cmake is way better than autohell. I learn autotools when I try to
work on Pgadmin and this really discourage me, instead I had a great
experience with cmake when I made a Kate plugin. I needed to add just a
line of cod
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:55:48 +0300
> From: shlo...@shlomifish.org
> To: parth...@gmail.com
> CC: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] What about switching from Gtk+ to Qt
>
> Hi Partha,
>
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:22:35 -0400
> Partha Bagchi wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Ju
On 12-07-29 06:21 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
CMake will be available in addition or instead of GNU Autotools (so I won't
work for naught).
My one expo
On Saturday, July 28, 2012, 23:54:31, Guiu Rocafort wrote:
> Any idea about what can be wrong ?
If you compiled babl yourself, it probably ended up in /usr/local/lib,
which is searched after /usr/lib - try running GIMP from terminal like
this:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib gimp-2.9
--
< Jerne
On 12-07-29 06:47 AM, Guiu Rocafort wrote:
It seems like having made a compiling from git and an "sudo make install"
installed the new versions of babl and gegl, but the package manager
doesn't noticed that and still thinks i have the previous version
installed. Does that make sense ? Any idea of
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:11:20 +0200
Malix wrote:
> I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames. Next step of
> the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3, why instead not switching
> away from gtk and go with Qt? And also leave autohell and switch to make?
>
> You can think t
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 14:57:17, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Just chipping in with some actual information: cmake does support
> cross-compiling quite well. See
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling.
This looks very complicated compared to ./configure
--host=x86_64-w64-mingw32 that
Autotools may be unpleasant to learn, but once it works, it works, and it
works well for GIMP. If you were starting a new project then you might have
grounds to think about picking an easier build tool, but why throw away all
the work already put into GIMP's use of autotools because autotools is to
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Partha Bagchi wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>>>
CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so u
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Partha Bagchi wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you meant
GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can also generate
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
>> CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you
>> meant
>> GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can also generate project files for
>> other IDEs a
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you
> meant
> GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can also generate project files for
> other IDEs and support some other build-systems, all from the same sources,
Whatever distro you work on, the package manager won't notice your
installation if you made it by 'make install' in the project's source
code. The package manager will see only applications installed as
packages (eg deb on debian/ubuntu/mint or rpm on fefora/centos etc).
Now if you still see old ba
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:44PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Do we need to change to CMake? Nobody has given
> > reasons so far, just assumed that we'd like to switch to CMake. It
> > would substitute one hell for another.
>
> Well, I have given many reasons here:
>
> http://www.shlomifish.
Hi Mukund,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:19 +0530
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Hi Shlomi
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
> > CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's develop
Hi Partha,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:22:35 -0400
Partha Bagchi wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > Hi Shlomi
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >> In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
> >> CM
Andreas Lemke wrote:
> I didn't mean to imply it is a fully controlled, scientifically valid study.
I am not asking for any of that. I work now 19 years in user interaction,
in the software industry. all of that highly practical and unscientific,
just create software that (for once) does not suck
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Hi Shlomi
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>> In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
>> CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
>> CMake
Hi Shlomi
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
> CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
> CMake will be available in addition or instead of GNU Autotools (so I wo
Hi all,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 04:44:21 +0400
Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Malix wrote:
>
> > I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames.
>
> But you do it anyway?
>
> > Next step of the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3
>
> It starte
>
> Hi,
> did you compile manually babl (and gegl) before compiling gimp? That's
> the best way to build the whole 'gimp environment' cause you get not
> only fresh gimp but also its crucial dependencies.
Yes, I've compiled them myself. Both of them were taken from the git
repository directly.I a
forgot to cc the gimp-developer ml..
-- Forwarded message --
From: trapDoor
Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] self-compiled git gimp 2.9 complains
about old babl version
To: Guiu Rocafort
Hi,
did you compile manually babl (and gegl) before compi
>
> Maybe in our community, others are willing to contribute more experiments
> in a true open source effort. If there is interest, I might do more myself.
What about doing a "template" with certain conditions and rules that allows
anyone to repeat the experiment made by andreas ? I would be able
Hi Peter,
I didn't mean to imply it is a fully controlled, scientifically valid
study. So let's call it an experiment. Just a single data point. As such
it doesn't prove anything. But it can be the beginning of more solid
work. Maybe in our community, others are willing to contribute more
exp
24 matches
Mail list logo
