<?xml version="1.0" ?>

<kc>
<title>Gimp Traffic</title>
<author contact="mailto:cflagg@kdigital.com">Cris Flagg</author>
<issue num="44" date="21 May 2001 00:00:00 -0800" />

<headquote>
<a href="http://www.gimp.org">The GIMP Homepage</a> | 
<a href="http://www.xach.com/gimp/news/index.html">The GIMP News Archive</a> | 
<a href="http://www.gimp.org/mailing_list.html">The GIMP Mailing Lists</a> | 
<a href="http://www.rru.com/~meo/gimp/">The GIMP FAQ</a>
</headquote>

<stats posts="54" size="201" contrib="21" multiples="10" lastweek="0">

<person posts="11" size="41" who="Sven Neumann &lt;sven@gimp.org&gt;" />
<person posts="9" size="34" who="Branko Collin &lt;collin@xs4all.nl&gt;" />
<person posts="4" size="16" who="quinet@gamers.org (Raphael Quinet)" />
<person posts="4" size="15" who="Shlomi Fish &lt;shlomif@vipe.technion.ac.il&gt;" />
<person posts="3" size="12" who="Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero &lt;famrom@infernal-iceberg.com&gt;" />
<person posts="3" size="9" who="Robert L Krawitz &lt;rlk@alum.mit.edu&gt;" />
<person posts="3" size="9" who="Fabian =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9rick?= &lt;fabian.frederick@gmx.fr&gt;" />
<person posts="2" size="9" who="Garry R. Osgood &lt;grosgood@rcn.com&gt;" />
<person posts="2" size="7" who="Tuomas Kuosmanen &lt;tigert@ximian.com&gt;" />
<person posts="2" size="7" who="Simon Budig &lt;Simon.Budig@unix-ag.org&gt;" />
<person posts="1" size="5" who="Raphael Quinet &lt;quinet@gamers.org&gt;" />
<person posts="1" size="4" who="Oliver Freyd &lt;freyd@uni-muenster.de&gt;" />
<person posts="1" size="4" who="Dave Neary &lt;dneary@eircom.net&gt;" />
<person posts="1" size="4" who="Nick Lamb &lt;njl98r@ecs.soton.ac.uk&gt;" />
<person posts="1" size="4" who="sc@pluto.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (Stefan Stiasny)" />
<person posts="1" size="3" who="meo@rru.com (Miles O'Neal)" />
<person posts="1" size="3" who="Michael Spunt &lt;t0mcat@gmx.de&gt;" />
<person posts="1" size="3" who="Michael Natterer &lt;mitch@gimp.org&gt;" />
<person posts="1" size="3" who="Dave Neary &lt;dave.neary@palamon.ie&gt;" />
<person posts="1" size="2" who="Michael Spunt &lt;t0mcat@gmx.de&gt;" />

</stats>



<section
  title="Plug In Distribution and Gallery Maker"
  author="Cris Flagg"
  contact="mailto:cflagg@kdigital.com"
  subject="Gallery maker ..."
  archive="http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg00377.html"
  posts="29"
  startdate="18 May 2001 00:05:23 -0800"
  enddate="19 May 2001 17:41:37 -0800"
>

<mention></mention>
<mention>Sven Neumann</mention>

<p>Fabian Frederick posted that he had created a gallery make
plug-in that did batch conversions (located at
<a href="http://www.dtlord.com/gallery">
http://www.dtlord.com/gallery</a>.)  Fabian then inquired
how to get this included in the distribution.
Raphael Quinet said that posting a message to the developers
list was the best way.  Since it was a perl script, Marc
would be the one to review it for distribution.  Raphael also
suggested including some examples of the output on the web page.
Stefan Stiasny had several suggestions about cleaning up the code,
covering some error handling and Gimp interface issues.
Fabian posted again saying GalleryMaker had been fully reviewed and 
modified.  Fabian also asked if it was mandatory it register the plug-in 
in order to reach the Gimp core application.
Sven Neumann said registering a plug-in was a very good idea since
it allows people to find it.  Sven also added that plug-ins
SHOULD be distributed outside the core package, but
now suitable system had yet been devised.  The goal was to have
the new system ready for the 1.3.0 developers release.
Dave Neary thought that plug-ins were not necessary to the Gimp,
so they should be distributed separately.  A plug-in package
would solve this problem.  Additionally, plug-ins should be
in a different CVS module from the core.
Garry R. Osgood said 
<quote who="Garry R. Osgood">
PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS was introduced into the distribution
on Tuesday, January 04, 2000; in the five hundred and
two days since that date, of the 162 core plugins cited
in that file, 52 have maintainers. By this metric, only
thirty-two percent of the core plug-ins are supported.
</quote>
Gary thought the question of maintenance and distribution 
were closely related.
</p>
<p>Branko Collin asked when changing a few line of code 
made something a new plug-in and
when the original author should be sent a patch.
Raphael suggested that if useful features can be added without breaking
the API, then a patch was in order.  Raphael had four suggestions about
submitting patches:
<quote who="Raphael Quinet">
<ul>
<li>Send them to the original author.  But you should first try to
    estimate when this author made his/her last contribution to the Gimp
    because he might not be active anymore.  Especially for Script-Fu,
    many scripts have been updated in CVS since the original author
    released them.  In that case, the other three solutions are more
    appropriate because the original author might not have the latest
    version of the script.</li>
<li>Post the patch to this list.  The patch should be in "diff -u" format.
    This only applies to small patches.  If your patch exceeds a few dozen
    lines, then you should consider the other solutions.  People do not
    like to receive big files in their mailboxes if they haven't asked for
    them.</li>
<li>Submit a new bug report to 
    <a href="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/">http://bugzilla.gnome.org/</a>
    describing what 
    your patch does, set its severity to "enhancement" and attach the
    patch file to the bug report using the "create attachment" feature.</li>
<li>Store your patch in the incoming directory of ftp.gimp.org and send a
    README file to the ftp admins, as described in the message that you
    will get when you enter the incoming directory.</li>
</ul>
</quote>
Branko thought that useful might be subjective, and the core developers
would probably need to judge that.  The author of the script Branko
modified copyrighted the script without mention of license.  
<quote who="Branko Collin">Does that mean 
it is automatically GPL'ed, because the script is part of the 
standard GIMP distribution? I do not know if the law works that way. 
</quote>
</p>

</section>



<section
  title="Print Plug-in"
  author="Cris Flagg"
  contact="mailto:cflagg@kdigital.com"
  subject="Print plugin"
  archive="http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg00383.html"
  posts="3"
  startdate="19 May 2001 17:49:30 -0800"
  enddate="20 May 2001 04:25:57 -0800"
>

<mention></mention>
<mention>Robert L Krawitz</mention>
<mention>Sven Neumann</mention>

<p>Robert L Krawitz announced the alpha release of the print plug-in with Gimp Print 4.2.  Robert asked what needed to be done about syncing up with the next Gimp release.
Sven Neumann said it could be included if it was sufficiently tests and 
suggested the plug-in and the enxt version of the Gimp be
released before the print plug-in was officially included.
</p>

</section>



<section
  title="Plug-In Distribution"
  author="Cris Flagg"
  contact="mailto:cflagg@kdigital.com"
  subject="plug-in distribution choices"
  archive="http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg00390.html"
  posts="11"
  startdate="20 May 2001 05:35:17 -0800"
  enddate="21 May 2001 15:40:34 -0800"
>

<mention>Sven Neumann </mention>
<mention></mention>
<mention>Garry R. Osgood</mention>

<p>Branko Collin wanted to discuss plug-in distribution, after it had
been mentioned earlier in <kcref title="Plug In Distribution and Gallery Maker" author="Cris Flagg"></kcref>.  First, Branko offered a definition of the
problem area <quote who="Branko Collin">
what are considered plug-ins? Everything that goes into the directory 'plug-ins'? 
Anything else?</quote>  Branko felt that part of the problem 
centered around deciding which scripts  belong in the core
distribution and which don't.  Branko suggested the following
classes of scripts be included in the core distribution:
<quote who="Branko Collin">
<ul>
<li>those that perform a task that the GIMP should have provided for 
itself or will provide for in the future;</li>
<li>those that will help other plug-in authors better understand how to 
write plug-ins;</li>
<li>those that will make the GIMP look good when compared to other 
raster image editors; and</li>
<li>those that perform a task the best in its field.</li>
</ul>
</quote>
Guillermo S. Romero added that some modules, like colour selectors,
could be considered plug-ins.  Also, since interpreters were not
part of the core distribution, scripts were really plug-ins
to plug-ins and might not be part of the distribution.  Plug-ins
In regard to plug-ins to help developers, Guillermo said
<quote who="Guillermo S. Romero">
That should be in a devel package. Why do a user need a plugin that
does nothing or near nothing? It is like the test script fu, lots of
controls and you get a plain ball. Or like devel packages, users do
not need to waste space with .h files that will never use.</quote>
Lastly, Guillermo added plug-ins that are maintained are different
form those that aren't.  All of the plug-ins could be included if they
were maintained, if <quote who="Guillermo S. Romero">... 
somebody finds a way to keep all plugins updated
(pay a coder with comunity money like with a Perl one? create a
company to support it?). :]</quote>
</p>
<p>Sven Neumann agreed with Branko that it was time to have this discussion
again. Sven stated <quote who="Sven Neumann">
Our goal is to have as much functionality as possible in plug-ins.
This reduces the size of the core, makes it cleaner and improves
maintainability of the core. This makes this rule questionable
especially since "a task that the Gimp should provide" is much too
vague.</quote>  Sven disagreed that another package having some functionality was reason enough to distribute particular plug-ins with the Gimp.
Sven took a different approach and discussed what a
plug-in should look like and why they were there.
</p>
<quote who="Sven Neumann">
<p>A very important point for distributing a plug-in is to have a 
maintainer that feels responsible for it. The core Gimp maintainers
would like to only have a set of basic image manipulation tasks
in the core package and they would feel responsible for keeping them 
up to date, handling bug-reports and discussing patches. Such basic 
plug-ins would include for example Blur, Gauss-Blur, Sharpen, Rotate,
and a set of important file-plug-ins to give only a few examples.
Other plug-ins could be grouped into smaller packages for special
purposes. For example there could be a gimp-web-plug-ins package
that adds functionality like GIF-Save, Anim-Optimize, ImageMap and
others. Such a package would have a maintainer who is responsible
to handle bug-reports and keeping the package in sync with the core.
Installing gimp would then be a process of installing gimp-core
and a set of plug-in packages that fit the needs of the user. Such
an approach has some obvious advantages but also a bunch of 
drawbacks:</p>
<p>The packages would have interdependencies. The web-plug-ins package
might include a gimp-perl script so it would require gimp-perl. Of
course everything in the web-plug-ins package but this script would
work w/o gimp-perl so actually gimp-perl is not required but only
recommened. I can however only think of one binary package system 
that can handle those kind of weak interdependencies (debian).
The packages should not overlap and they should share the menus
intelligently. This would require some interaction between package
maintainers. I think however that this should be doable.
On multi-user systems the administrator who installs gimp can not
decide what packages the users might want. One solution is to 
install them all. This would however lead to overcrowded menus.
A problem that could be solved by a plug-in manager that knows 
about all plug-ins that are available and lets the user choose
what plug-ins she wants to see in the menus.
Having gimp split up into dozens of packages will make installation
difficult. Again a plug-in manager that knows about all available
plug-ins out there, collects and installs them would help.
It turns out we need a plug-in manager. What functionality should
such a beast have? Here's a list of things that came to my mind:
It should read a number of plug-in lists: a list of all available
plug-ins that is distributed with the core gimp and can be updated 
through the web. A list of plug-ins that are installed locally do
not necessarily appear in the menus.
It should have meta-packages of plug-ins similar to the task-lists
Debian has so a user can install a bunch of plug-ins with a single
click. One meta-package would be "All plug-ins", other tasks could
be "Web Publishing", "Photo Retouching", ...
It should be able to download and install precompiled binary 
packages or download sources, compile and install them. A solution
for the binary packages would be to use the binary packaging 
system provided by the distribution. Since there are a bunch of
different distrbutions out there, this might be tricky.
That should be enough food for thought for now. Please comment.
</p>
</quote>

<p>
Guillermo said he would make a basic plug-in handler so 
users can remove and add them to menus, if installed, and let the real
development focus on getting and installing the plug-ins.  Guillermo suggested
using a package system, which would mean a security audit for all UID 0 
Sven agreed that dealing with binary packages would be cumbersome
and that a solution would be to distribute source packages with a
file (possible XML as described by Ingo) that describes the package
to the next generation plug-in registry.  Sven also added
<quote who="Sven Neumann">
For the moment we want to keep all plug-ins in the core package until
we have ported Gimp to Glib/GTK+-2.0. This is because we think that 
a lot plug-ins will be ported very easily and having them all in one
place might ease this task. Once the port is done (and we are going to 
start it very soon now), we should think about moving most of the 
plug-ins out of the core CVS module. Hopefully we have made up our mind
on the new plug-in system until then. </quote>
Garry R. Osgood also agreed the Gimp developers did not have the resources
to create binary plug-in distributions.  Garry felt the general approach
to plug-ins was useful, and mentioned that this could become a lot like
a protocol.
Branko added the issues sounded more like it centered around finding 
maintainers and offered the Debian tool as a means for packaging plug-ins.
Sven pointed out that Debian tool was good for Debian users, RPMS were
good for Red Hat users, and Binary was good for Windows Users.
</p>

</section>



<section
  title="Gamma Correction"
  author="Cris Flagg"
  contact="mailto:cflagg@kdigital.com"
  subject="GIMP and Gamma Correction?"
  archive="http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg00397.html"
  posts="3"
  startdate="21 May 2001 00:02:43 -0800"
  enddate="21 May 2001 06:39:48 -0800"
>

<mention></mention>
<mention>Michael Natterer</mention>
<mention>Sven Neumann</mention>

<p>Shlomi Fish asked where the Gamma Correction plug-in for the Gimp
1.2.x lived.  Sven Neumann pointed to Image->Colors->Levels, saying
the middle entry of the "Input Values" corresponds to Gamma.
Michael Natterer added the display filter subsystem was disabled for
1.2.x because it was not finished and should be re-enabled in the HEAD
to avoid bit-rot.
</p>

</section>



<section
  title="Plug-Ins, Menus and User Interface"
  author="Cris Flagg"
  contact="mailto:cflagg@kdigital.com"
  subject="Plug-ins, menus and user interface"
  archive="http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg00403.html"
  posts="15"
  startdate="21 May 2001 07:47:33 -0800"
  enddate="28 May 2001 14:54:58 -0800"
>

<mention>Branko Collin</mention>
<mention>Nick Lamb</mention>
<mention></mention>
<mention>Simon Budig</mention>
<mention>Tuomas Kuosmanen</mention>

<p>In relation to the discussion of plug-ins, Raphael Quinet
mentioned the menus were too crowded and new users could easily 
get lost.  To Raphael, distributing fewer plug-ins with the core
distribution did not solve this problem.  Raphael suggested 
different levels of detail, in a manner similar to GNOME.
<quote who="Raphael Quinet">
<ul>
<li>Dumb user (oops, I mean beginner): only some basic operations are
  visible in the menus and in the toolbox, and the Gimp allows you to
  do as much as the venerable XPaint (or Windows Paint).</li>
<li>Apprentice: all core operations are visible, and only the plug-ins
  distributed in the core package are available.</li>
<li> Normal: all plug-ins are available.</li>
<li> Expert: some additional entries become available, such as the PDB
  browser, parasite editor and other things that are more interesting
  for a developer than for a normal user.</li>
</ul>
</quote>
Nick Lamb thought this sounded like themes, which he considered
a good thing.  It would allow customized versions of the Gimp to
be tailored to particular applications.  Themes could describe
menu layout and keyboard shortcuts.
Shlomi Fish thought this was a great idea.  In order to allow flexible
customization, Shlomi suggested dividing the themes into sections such
as keyboard, menus, toolbox, etc.
</p>
<p>Branko Collin added that this sounded like the new menus in
Windows, where the most important and most used items are displayed.
Shlomi said the computers at the faculty PC-Farm were always reset
to the initial values, making the system annoying.
Sven posted that 'man gimp' was your friend, since the --gimprc 
option allowed an alternate path to the RC file.
Raphael clarified that all plug-ins must still be available,
if only through the PDB and not the menus.  Additionally,
Raphael did not think the keyboard shortcuts should be changed, and
that the bloat that came with customizing the Gimp until it was unrecognizable 
(a la mozilla and XUL) would slight coolness factor, but no
usefulness.  Lastly, Raphael pointed out that changing menu layout would
affect the tutorials.
Tuomas Kuosmanen disagreed that the new Windows menus were useful, because
the forced the user to reread the menu every time it was displayed.
Simon Budig agreed that the new Windows style menus were distracting, but
sorting a menu item by importance was attractive.
Branko Collin suggested a "tutorial theme" or having tutorials
switch the user into advanced mode.
Oliver thought that the dynamic menus allowed the user to always end up
in the wrong type of menu, making the entire application look bad.
</p>
<p>On a side note, Shlomi Fish thought the aim of the Gimp 
1.3.x was to be independent of 
the GUI library.  Shlomi added that this would make porting to
windows easier since it could use Win32 controls.
Sven said the plan was not to be totally independent from the GUI
toolkit.  <quote who="Sven Neumann">It's the Gimp Toolkit after all... </quote>
Sven said the current focus was to move the GUI interface from the core.
</p>

</section>




<section
  title="ANNOUNCE: Gimp-Print 4.0.5"
  author="Cris Flagg"
  contact="mailto:cflagg@kdigital.com"
  subject="ANNOUNCE: Gimp-Print 4.0.5"
  archive="http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg00535.html"
  posts="1"
  startdate="26 May 2001 07:15:08 -0800"
  enddate="26 May 2001 07:15:08 -0800"
>

<mention></mention>
<mention>Robert L Krawitz</mention>

<p>Robert L Krawitz posted the following announcement about Gimp Print:</p>
<quote who="Robert L. Krawitz">
<p>This is a rerelease of Gimp-Print 4.0.5, which had some errors when
released earlier this week.  Thanks to Mike Sweet for managing this
release.  This is expected to be the last release in the Gimp-Print
4.0 stable line.
</p>
<p>Gimp-Print 4.0.5 contains the following fixes and improvements over
Gimp-Print 4.0.4:
</p>
<ol>
<li>Added support for the EPSON Stylus Color 680 and 777</li>
<li>Added support for the EPSON Stylus Pro 7500</li>
<li>Fixed a bug in the GIMP plug-in GUI - the image scaling was
   not maintained properly.</li>
</ol>
</quote>


</section>



<section
  title="Copyrights and Licenses"
  author="Cris Flagg"
  contact="mailto:cflagg@kdigital.com"
  subject="Copyrights and licenses"
  archive="http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg00554.html"
  posts="7"
  startdate="29 May 2001 01:36:08 -0800"
  enddate="29 May 2001 05:49:30 -0800"
>

<mention>Branko Collin</mention>
<mention></mention>
<mention>Simon Budig</mention>
<mention>Sven Neumann</mention>
<mention>Guillermo S. Romero</mention>

<p>Branko Collin asked which parts of the Gimp required their 
own licenses.  Are all of the plug-ins covered because the Gimp
is GPLed, which covers components.
Sven Neumann  said
<quote who="Sven Neumann ">
Everything distributed with The GIMP should be GPL, LGPL or a compatible 
license. I know there are a few scripts/plug-ins that don't specify the 
copyright/license explicitely. If you want to go thru the hassle of 
fixing them, try to get in contact with the respective authors and ask
if putting a GPL header is fine. Actually we assume that all plug-ins
in the GIMP distribution are GPLed.
</quote>
Dave Neary thought that things that depended on the Gimp, but were not
in the core, could be under any old license.  This allows companys
to release propriatary plug-ins and modules (something Dave couldn't
see any use for).  Sven added that libgimp was LGPL s other people
could use different licenses, but this didn't mean that any non GLP scripts
or modules would be distributed with the Gimp.
Simon Budig confirmed that the LGPL allowed propriatary links against
the LGPLed libraries.
Guillermo S. Romero thought a propriatary Pantone  module or plug-in
would be both useful and salable.
</p>

</section>



</kc>


