From: Robert L K. <rl...@al...> - 2004-03-30 12:25:17
|
From: Kai-Uwe Behrmann <ku...@gm...> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:43:29 +0200 (CEST) Am 29.03.04, 20:42 -0500 schrieb Robert L Krawitz: > From: Roger Leigh <ro...@wh...> > Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:14:15 +0100 > > Robert L Krawitz <rl...@al...> writes: > > Would someone like to volunteer? > > I'll certainly take a look. Would "libgimpprintui2" and "gimp2" > subdirectories be OK to put the source in? > > See how much code difference there is, whether it can be #ifdef'ed or > built twice or something. As I do color management prototyping mostly from within CinePaint, I need gtk1. So it would be nice to not throw away the gtk1 interface. I hope to bring color management to gimp-print in some way after a period of stabilizing. A complete swap to gtk2 would make me loose any ground. Why CinePaint? It supports the same data precisions - 16-bit - like gimp-print or even the new photoshop cs. I heared very positive response about 16-bit from photoshop users. This means 16-bit will become standard. Hopefully you're doing a better GUI than our libgimpprintui. In any event, this is only the UI; the Gimp-Print driver itself doesn't use gtk or glib. > Is the GIMP 2.0 problem with 5.0 or 4.2.7? I'm willing to port the > 5.0 plugin to GTK+-2.x, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort for > 4.2.x. Can I help? As I need to look closer anyway at the gimp-print gui. Yes, this would be most welcome. I agree that there's no reason to port the 4.2 code ourselves. The GIMP folks have already done this. This is strictly a 5.0 issue. -- Robert Krawitz <rl...@al...> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lp...@uu... Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton |