On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 9:44 PM Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I recently dropped building for s390x but missed to announce it here,
> thanks to Benjamin Beasley for the reminder.
>
> The reason is that both some of its tests as well as building the
> splash imag
Hi!
I recently dropped building for s390x but missed to announce it here,
thanks to Benjamin Beasley for the reminder.
The reason is that both some of its tests as well as building the
splash image (using a headless gimp process) hang in communication with
plugin processes, I assume because of
Hello team,
gimp-wavelet-decompose [1] packaged is now retired for Fedora 41 and
onward due to its obsolescence from
built-in function in GIMP 2.99 accessible through “Filters → Enhance →
Wavelet-decompose”.
I also orphaned that package for Fedora 40 and lower as the focus is now
shifting
With the arrival of GIMP 3 on Fedora 41, it is time to retire the long
dead upstream GIMP plugins due to their
dependency to Python 2.7.
gimp-layer-via-copy-cut:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp-layer-via-copy-cut
gimp-save-for-web: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp-save-for-web
With the advent of GIMP 3 coming with basic support of CMYK, the add-on is very
much obsolete. I retired it for both Fedora 41 and Rawhide. Thanks for
maintaining it for a long time.
On 2024-08-24 3:53 a.m., Peter Hanecak wrote:
Hello,
I'm orphaning gimp-separate+ since:
1) FTBFS in F
Hello,
I'm orphaning gimp-separate+ since:
1) FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40 and later (see [1] and [2])
2) last update upstream was in 2010
3) I did not find any suitable replacement
Sincerely
Peter
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2301804
[2] https://bugzilla.redha
> On 13/05/2024 00:58, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> The gimp package should be updated to 3.0, and the existing 2.x version
> should move to the gimp2 compatibility package.
I'm inclined to agree, not JUST because it makes sense from an update
perspective, but because it's the
ackage gimp3 which can be installed side-by-side
> with the existing version 2.x package, so people can continue working
> on existing projects with the old gimp version and its plugins.
The naming of the srpm / dist-git repos is fine. But please call the
binary rpm with the new version 'g
with many new features and improved user
> > > experience. The package is called gimp3, the old
> > > version
> > > will still be available under the old name, gimp for
> > > users who need it for existing projects.
> >
> > +1 to the proposal, but -1 to
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:27:33AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:22 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
> > On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > > Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40?
> > Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically f
available under the old name, gimp for
users who need it for existing projects.
+1 to the proposal, but -1 to the quoted statement.
GIMP 3 should go to the gimp package and the gimp2 legacy
compatibility package should be introduced.
Vitaly got it right---it should be a major exception to introduce
On 16/06/2024 18:24, Aoife Moloney wrote:
This release of Fedora Linux ships version 3 of the GNU Image
Manipulation Program, with many new features and improved user
experience. The package is called gimp3, the old version
will still be available under the old name, gimp for
users who need it
Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Gimp_3
Discussion Thread -
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f41-change-proposal-gimp-version-3-self-contained/120254
This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux.
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:22 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40?
Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping
through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the OS – or
wait
might change and then the 2.x package will be retired. I have my
> reasons for naming the set of packages ("gimp", "gimp3") rather than
> ("gimp2", "gimp") which you might not find convincing, but in the end
> which package gets the versioned name and
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
...
> > Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40?
>
> Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping
> through hoops, and I don’t want t
t the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version,
> > > > not
> > > > gimp3 for the new version...
> > this is to avoid package renaming churn and to be able to introduce
> > GIMP 3 alongside the 2.x packages already in Fedora. I use the same
>
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 13:27, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:49:47 +0200
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
[...]
> > Also, how did this pass review?
> >
> > License:LGPLv3+
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3/blob/rawhide/f/gimp3.spec
> contains
>
> License:
ions carry a "compat"
> > suffix
> > (i.e. the new version is the one without the suffix, and the old
> > version
> > has the suffix), this is - contrary to popular belief - not
> > actually
> > required or even mentioned in the packaging guidelines.
>
&
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 8:38 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 13/05/2024 13:24, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > If I’m not off track, renaming the existing version to “gimp2” would at
> > least make people install it as an update to “gimp-2.10.x” without any
> > real
On 13/05/2024 13:24, Nils Philippsen wrote:
If I’m not off track, renaming the existing version to “gimp2” would at
least make people install it as an update to “gimp-2.10.x” without any
real benefit to them. And it would make ”gimp” jump to version 3 which
is wildly different
Fedora is a
On 13/05/2024 00:58, Sérgio Basto wrote:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
The gimp package should be updated to 3.0, and the existing 2.x version
should move to the gimp2 compatibility package.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org
mp3
What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
gimp3 for the new version...
this is to avoid package renaming churn and to be able to introduce
GIMP 3 alongside the 2.x packages already in Fedora. I use the same MO
for Ardour, which gets major version updates more often tha
On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:49:47 +0200
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? This should have be
rc.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
> > gimp3 for the new version...
this is to avoid package renaming churn and to be able to introduce
GIMP 3 alongside the 2.x packages already in Fedora.
on
> has the suffix), this is - contrary to popular belief - not actually
> required or even mentioned in the packaging guidelines.
Also correct.
And Nils, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. Just that it'd be a
good idea to announce this, even if to invite testers. I actually ha
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
On 13. 05. 24 12:34, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Sun,
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? Th
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> >
>
> What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
> gimp3 for the new version...
Also, how did this pass rev
Well this is surprising. I agree it would be better to have either gimp2
repo or just private branch with GIMP 3 preparations under current GIMP
repository. But at the same time I understand Nil's workflow.
I just hope once the GIMP 3 is out and buildable/operational in Fedora
rawhide the
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 5:09 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 17:00 -0600, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for th
On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 17:00 -0600, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> >
>
> What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
> gimp3 for the new version...
Well I'm thinking h
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
>
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
>
What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
gimp3 for the new version...
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
_
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 20:43 +0200, Josef Řídký wrote:
> I believe once the GIMP 3.0 is out the Fedora version will follow
> almost immediately.
>
> Josef
> GIMP co-maintainer
>
> Dne po 6. 5. 2024 22:13 uživatel Dominik &
I believe once the GIMP 3.0 is out the Fedora version will follow almost
immediately.
Josef
GIMP co-maintainer
Dne po 6. 5. 2024 22:13 uživatel Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> napsal:
> Hi!
>
> I noticed that GIMP 3.0 is scheduled[1] for releas
Hi!
I noticed that GIMP 3.0 is scheduled[1] for release in June. It'd be
nice to have it in F41. Are there any plans to do so? Do the maintainers
(Cc'd) need any help?
[1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/10373#timeline
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora https://fedoraproject.o
Hi,
with version 2.0.4, gimp-data-extras is licensed as GPL-3.0-or-later.
Ciao,
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Senior Software Engineer / Red Hat
PGP fingerprint: D0C1 1576 CDA6 5B6E BBAE 95B2 7D53 7FCA E9F6 395D
___
devel mailing list -- devel
Hi,
gimp-help license was changed from GFDL and GPLv2+ to
GFDL-1.2-invariants-only as GPLv2+ is license used for scripts used during
build time only and those scripts are not part of final language/help
packages.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech
Josef Řídký wrote:
> The file-dds plugin directory has available COPYING file which is
> GPL-2.0-only original text (with accuracy 0.983).
It is normal for GPL-2.0-or-later code to come with a copy of the GPLv2
COPYING. You cannot distinguish GPL-2.0-only from GPL-2.0-or-later from the
COPYING f
ackages (I
think, relatively simple packages that are not "old"), but probably not
something like gimp.
Richard
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 4:11 PM Josef Řídký wrote:
> This license was mentioned in the output of the 'askalono' command run
> over the gimp source code.
> T
This license was mentioned in the output of the 'askalono' command run over
the gimp source code.
The file-dds plugin directory has available COPYING file which is
GPL-2.0-only original text (with accuracy 0.983).
It's true that no other checks were made upon files there as I d
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 3:54 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
> The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
> distribution not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the
> GPL-3.0-only
>
> Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugi
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:53:25AM +0200, Josef Řídký wrote:
> The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
> distribution
> not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the GPL-3.0-only
>
> Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds&#
The GIMP application core, and other portions of the official GIMP
distribution not explicitly licensed otherwise, are licensed under the
GPL-3.0-only
Explicitly licensed under GPL-2.0-only is 'file-dds' plugin.
Explicitly licensed under BSD-3-Clause are 'script-fu/ftx' and
&
Josef Řídký wrote:
> Based on the SPDX requirements, that should be correct. Some parts of the
> package are available under GPL-2.0-only and some under GPL-3.0-only
> license.
And they are not linked together? Because if they are, we have a problem!
Kevin Kofler
_
Based on the SPDX requirements, that should be correct. Some parts of the
package are available under GPL-2.0-only and some under GPL-3.0-only
license.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:34 PM Kevin Kofler via deve
Josef Řídký wrote:
> AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only
Oops?
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedorapro
Good point. Thanks for the typo correction.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 2:35 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:22 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
> >
> > A license of "gimp" p
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:22 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
>
> A license of "gimp" package was corrected from
> GPLv3+ and GPLv3
> to
> GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND BSD-3.0-Clause
>
Do you mean "BSD-3-Clause"? I don't know of a
A license of "gimp" package was corrected from
GPLv3+ and GPLv3
to
GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-only AND BSD-3.0-Clause
in Fedora Rawhide
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Cz
An old gimp add-on is retiring from Rawhide repository, gimp-dpb (Dave's
Batch Processing). Upstream is no more as their
website no longer exists. The repository is on
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp-dbp
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Design Team
Fedora Design Suite maint
Josef Řídký wrote:
> From my point of view, it's ok, if the GIMP ends with an error message
> explaining something like - No such file. This is actually written in the
> super long alert window that pops up.
>
> What is not so good are the cases, when GIMP crashes. They
Ok, I think I got it now. So first of all, the 'Open location' option in
GIMP expects a valid URI address - path to some local/network file (which
the data:image/svg... string is not).
>From my point of view, it's ok, if the GIMP ends with an error message
explaining something l
> I've tried to download and open...
When I use RMB -> "Save image as" in Firefox, and then open the downloaded .svg
in GIMP, everything works fine.
The crash only happens when I take the "data:image/svg..." string and use "Open
location" in GIMP.
> W
Thanks for the information.
I've tried to download and open the OpenFinance company logo in GIMP on F34
(GNOME, XOrg) and all works as expected. The GIMP opens the import window
and proceeds normally.
What version/type of GIMP are you using? (rpm -q gimp)
Best regards
Josef Ridky
S
> Well, it would be great to get even terminal output from GIMP...
Terminal output under MATE (where GIMP crashes):
--- start
(gimp:7907): Gdk-WARNING **: 13:23:36.694: Native Windows wider or taller than
32767 pixels are not supported
(gimp:7907): Gdk-ERROR **: 13:23:36.817: The prog
Well, it would be great to get even terminal output from GIMP, if possible
(save it and then use 'gimp --verbose file-name').
Based on the txt file, it looks like it should be originally SVG file, in
that case, GIMP is able to open SVG file, but it make raster out of it, so
could be ha
Recently I tried to edit some image from the internet in GIMP. Pressing "open
image in new tab" in Firefox yielded a "data:image/svg+xml;base64..." link.
Being a lazy person, instead of saving the image to disk, I selected "open
location" in GIMP and pasted the
On 24. 07. 19 3:42, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Following the bug report[1], I would like to take ownership of
gimp-resynthetizer because of its use on Fedora Design Suite Labs. Would
it be possible to orphan that package?
You can follow either:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco
Following the bug report[1], I would like to take ownership of
gimp-resynthetizer because of its use on Fedora Design Suite Labs. Would
it be possible to orphan that package?
Reference
--
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674969
Luya
I've taken it, though I don't have anything ready for review right now.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hello team,
I am looking for a review swap for gimp-luminosity-masks:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440
The package is very simple and easy to review.
Thanks in advance,
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: l...@fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.coolest-storm
Gimp-wavelet-decompose plugin for Gimp is looking for a trivial review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447213
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: l...@fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.coolest-storm.net
___
devel mailing
I am willing to do review swap in exchange of two GIMP needed for the
Design Suite.
Here is the link:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329424
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329923
Thanks advance
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: l...@fedoraproject.o
> On 22 April 2016 at 08:16, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
>
>
> IINM the ^^^ %files section can't be commented out.
>
> [...]
Fixed.
%global addon layer-via-copy-cut
Name: gimp-%{addon}
Version:1.6
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Layer via co
On 22 April 2016 at 08:16, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> Hello team,
>
> I just hit an issue trying to build a gimp plugins which use python.
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13757854
>
> You can take a look at the spec below so you
Hello team,
I just hit an issue trying to build a gimp plugins which use python.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13757854
You can take a look at the spec below so you can check the mistake:
---
%globaladdon layer-via-copy-cut
Name
Hi,
I would appreciate it if someone could review the gimp-saver-plugin
package. I'm not an approved packager (need a sponsor) but if you have a
package for review I'll be happy to have a look.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162731
gimp-saver-plugin is a combined Sav
On 2014-11-11, 15:29 GMT, Patrick Laimbock wrote:
> I created one but am in need of a sponsor.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162731
I would gladly do the review, but unfortunately I am not
a sponsor.
Matěj
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedor
On 11-11-14 11:51, Matěj Cepl wrote:
http://shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/
It seems awfully useful (yes, I hate the Save/Export split), but
I have too much already on my plate.
I created one but am in need of a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162731
If you can'
http://shallowsky.com/software/gimp-save/
It seems awfully useful (yes, I hate the Save/Export split), but
I have too much already on my plate.
Matěj
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http
On 15/08/13 12:28 PM, Mattias Ellert wrote:
Try:
%doc License?for?Contents License_gpl-2.0.txt Readme.txt
See: http://www.rpm.org/ticket/858
Mattias
Thank you Mattias, your suggestion worked.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=456936
Luya
--
devel mailing list
de
tor 2013-08-15 klockan 11:57 -0700 skrev Luya Tshimbalanga:
> Hello,
> I wonder why the build failed[1] despite assigning a quotation on a doc
> file listed on:
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gimp-paint-studio.git/tree/gimp-paint-studio.spec?h=el6
>
> Is there a way to
Hello,
I wonder why the build failed[1] despite assigning a quotation on a doc
file listed on:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gimp-paint-studio.git/tree/gimp-paint-studio.spec?h=el6
Is there a way to fix that?
Ref
[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=456904
Luya
Hello contributors,
I am looking for a review swap on gimp-paint-studio[1] which is a set of
brushes for Gimp.
In addition, it would be nice if someone can sponsor Peter Hanecak[2], a
new Fedora contributor who package some
Gimp application for OpenMamba. Unfortunately, I am ineligible because
On Sun, 2013-07-28 at 23:08 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> Hello,
> I am looking for a reviewer for gimp-dds-plugin in exchange of swap.
> The package is very easy to review with all complete test.
>
> Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988489
>
> Thank y
Hello,
I am looking for a reviewer for gimp-dds-plugin in exchange of swap.
The package is very easy to review with all complete test.
Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988489
Thank you.
Luya
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
I am currently writing a spec for gimp-paint-studio.
I cannot find a good way to effectively package it so I would like so guide:
http://ur1.ca/et1h0
Thanks in advance,
Luya
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of
go. That package
> > should be retired and replaced.
>
> Unfortunately G'MIC is an usability nightmare, an app inside the app,
> duplicating in a crammed interface a lot of existing GIMP functions,
> instead of GREYCStoration simple filter for noise reduction.
I'v
e app,
duplicating in a crammed interface a lot of existing GIMP functions,
instead of GREYCStoration simple filter for noise reduction.
--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/
photography: http://photoblog.nicubunu.ro/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Quoting Nils Philippsen :
>
> GREYCstoration: deebs
GREYstoration[1]is dead and superseded by GMIC[2] awhile ago. That package
should be retired and replaced.
Cheers,
[1]http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/index.shtml
[2]http://gmic.sourceforge.net/gimp.shtml
--
devel mailing list
deve
Hi,
I just finished with the Fedora 17 feature page for GIMP 2.8[1] and
built gimp-2.7.4 into Rawhide.
GIMP changed its licensing to GPLv3+ (app, included plugins) and LGPLv3+
(libraries) from the 2.7 development versions on. I've checked dependent
packages and found that all are listed
Now that Nils, Gimp maintainer, created Gimp Unstable repository[1],
there is no more reason to duplicate that effort. Without fanfare, I
decide to retire my own version[2] thus delete the repo. Thank you all
for using my package. That was a good experience as package maintainer.
[1] http
On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 23:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)&qu
Nils Philippsen wrote:
> Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
Not an actual answer to your question, but wouldn'
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 21:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)&
gt; > > Here's the gist (in no particular order):
> >
> > - GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+" (executables,
> > libraries)
> > - This makes it incompatible with poppler's license (GPLv2 only,
> > inherited from xpdf at the time
>>>>> "NP" == Nils Philippsen writes:
NP> Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
NP> able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
NP> "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
This
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
> the stove on.
>
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Here's the gist (in no particular order):
>
> - GIMP
It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
the stove on.
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> Here's the gist (in no particular order):
- GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+" (executables,
librarie
...or so I've heard[1]. Here we go:
Herewith I announce the officially unofficial unstable GIMP for Fedora
repository!
I've held off making packages of the 2.7.x series for a long time, but
thankfully Luya Tshimbalanga has offered his own versions of these on
his fedorapeople
confident about getting 2.8 in time for F-17 as I felt about 2.4 for
F-8. If you look at the development schedule on
http://tasktaste.com/projects/Enselic/gimp-2-8 you'll notice some fairly
sizable tasks left which account for 15-18 workdays of people who'll
likely do this in their
e new ones are expected to be ABI compatible. Therefore I
> don't see a real alternative to rebasing to 2.8 in stable Fedora
> releases when it finally is available, after thoroughly testing it of
> course (which I already do to a certain extent, I can e.g. confirm that
> the ufraw
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 21:29 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:34:00PM -0300, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> > is this a good reason ?
> > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/23/1355225/The-GIMP-Now-Has-a-Working-Single-Window-Mode
>
> That'
> > You mean something like this?
> >
> > http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/luya/gimp/
That repo is updated to 2.7.3.
Regards,
Luya
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:34:00PM -0300, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> is this a good reason ?
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/23/1355225/The-GIMP-Now-Has-a-Working-Single-Window-Mode
That's a great example of what shouldn't happen _inside_ a release. New
releases come
Petr Machata wrote:
> Is that actually possible? I seem to recall that the reason why Firefox
> can be called Firefox in Fedora, and not, say, Iceweasel or whatever, is
> that we ship vanilla upstream.
I have always said that if we can't ship Firefox with that name while
following the Fedora pol
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
