Hi,
Timothy E. Jedlicka - wrk wrote:
> Sorry to quote Sven out of context, this was regarding a user on 1.2.2 - two
> years out of date. My point was that I've noticed several
> notes from users on really old versions - 1. is this a problem? 2. is it worth
> fixing?
Not really a problem. If he
Sorry to quote Sven out of context, this was regarding a user on 1.2.2 - two
years out of date. My point was that I've noticed several
notes from users on really old versions - 1. is this a problem? 2. is it worth
fixing?
I assume anyone using developer versions knows to check for recent update
Hi,
Gene Heskett wrote:
> >Support for the newer gimp-print API will be added. If it doesn't
> > make it into 2.0.0, there's nothing that keeps it from being done
> > for the 2.0.1 release.
>
> Chuckle, that old adage about never downloading version x.0.0 of
> anything comes to mind. :)
The onl
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 15:26, Sven Neumann wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Here I would modfiy that because I use the gimp for all my image
>> printing, so the 2.0 release needs to be able to link up with the
>> newer gimp-print too. So far, that hasn't happened. I a
Hi,
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here I would modfiy that because I use the gimp for all my image
> printing, so the 2.0 release needs to be able to link up with the
> newer gimp-print too. So far, that hasn't happened. I assume it will
> by the time gimp-print is out in 5.0 fin
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 14:52, Sven Neumann wrote:
>Hi,
>
>misfit-x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Would it possibly be that at gimp.org the latest "stable" version
>> is 1.2.5 and that is what might be included in most distros (not
>> sure what distros all include, but my RH9 I got was
>> 1.2.s
Hi,
misfit-x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it possibly be that at gimp.org the latest "stable" version is
> 1.2.5 and that is what might be included in most distros (not sure
> what distros all include, but my RH9 I got was 1.2.something)? And
> maybe other folks would not want to "risk" u
Bill Lee wrote:
Right on! I just moved to FC1 and 1.2.5 is what's there.
SuSE 9.0 Pro, 1.2.5 as well.
--
Until later, Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xc
misfit-x wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 11:53, Timothy E. Jedlicka - wrk wrote:
On 13 Jan 2004, "Sven" == Sven Neumann wrote:
Sven> Is there a particular reason you are running such an outdated version?
I see this statement a lot - i.e. users using really old versions of Gimp.
Would it be reaso
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 11:53, Timothy E. Jedlicka - wrk wrote:
> > On 13 Jan 2004, "Sven" == Sven Neumann wrote:
>
> Sven> Is there a particular reason you are running such an outdated version?
>
> I see this statement a lot - i.e. users using really old versions of Gimp.
> Would it be reas
>
> > On 13 Jan 2004, "Sven" == Sven Neumann wrote:
>
> Sven> Is there a particular reason you are running such an outdated
> version?
>
> I see this statement a lot - i.e. users using really old versions of Gimp.
>
> Would it be reasonable/feasible to add a hook into gimp that checks it'
> On 13 Jan 2004, "Sven" == Sven Neumann wrote:
Sven> Is there a particular reason you are running such an outdated version?
I see this statement a lot - i.e. users using really old versions of Gimp.
Would it be reasonable/feasible to add a hook into gimp that checks it's age
and gives a
12 matches
Mail list logo
