I've been thinking now for hours if I should post these lines or just leave them somewhere on my harddrive and trying to forget about the last few days.
But I can't stand it.
On 1. Oct. 2008, Gimp 2.6 was released and I started to spend much time on getting 2.6 to run on OS X. Finally I did it and posted this information here on WLA's forum. But instead of feeling good and having pleasure with this brand new version, it turned out to become - let's say - exhausting. Long postings, longer explanations, and ... less fun. And... I was getting angry. Why?
Here is my point of view.
A few days before 2.6 was released I joined in again on WLA. I read many postings to get a general idea about what's going on and made some postings to topics on which I had some fixes or improvements. At least I thought I had. Nothing special, but somehow it seems to me that my postings were of little interest.
The xcf-plugin.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=540I made a small improvement, I got a big "Thanks"... but it's still not in SVN. OK, this might happen....just forgotten
The twain_LINK bug
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2457&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30I fixed a bug in the twain plugin, which broke compilation. No big deal. But no hint about this fix in the build instructions. OK. Very minor, since 2.6 will arrive soon.
In the meantime I learned how to create MacPorts patchfiles.... and fixed this bug on my own build and provided this build to others.
The font size problem
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2732viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2731I discoverd a hint on macosxhints about how to fix the font size problem under X11. And I posted it here. Although this is the "correct" way to fix it and everything else is a workaround, it's not included here on WLA. Not even a hint in the FAQ. Hhmm, although minor, the fix is very useful. So why not fixing this?
The answer: upstream should do it. Users aren't able to do this.
Changing one line in a shell script? But WLA supports users to compile a package like Gimp consisting of dozens of ports.... astonishing.
Then came the "great discussion"
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2731about Clearlooks:
I've read postings on WLA that some people wanted Clearlooks. Alright, so I included it in "my" release as there were no problems at all with this port.
Result: No! In former times there were some problems, and if _I _ would know the cause for that former bug and fix it, then it will be included.
Great. How should I know the cause why Gimp crashes on some foreign computers with a binary that I didn't compile? .... very astonishing.
about dbus:
same situation as Clearlooks. I included this in "my" version of the app bundle. (BTW, which runs pretty well...)
Now what was the answer?: Will not be included, because it crashed.
Crashed? Maybe. I don't know. But this is, let's say, history! dbus does a great job on my system and with dbus drag&drop works like a charme.
But, no chance. The only thing I got was " unless you know a compelling reason".
IMO I had the best reasons one could think of: I works like a charme and most important, as you can see in Gimp 2.6, drag & drop now won't work without dbus.
And of course, believe me, I know what dbus is about on linux (I'm working with linux from the very beginning. I still own a 5.25 ``floppy with kernel 0.98!) ....
about improvements to ufraw:
You know what comes...
Not to be included. If upstream will include it, then WLA will include it. No way to do it earlier.
But why should upstream include it? These patches are _only_ related to Mac OS X way of dealing with preferences and extensions: no use of dotfiles, use of *.tiff instead of *.tif. .... slowly getting angry, but still not caring about.
about ghostscript:
I dropped it, because I thought it was about printing only.
I got a hint that it's necessary to open eps files.
Thanks. Take a look at "my" latest build. Ghostscript is included, because I got a very logical and reasonable answer. BTW, ghostscript is not a dependency of gimp in MacPorts. Please remember this later...
about greycstoration:
One of the best free noise reduction tools, so I included it in "my" build.
Guess what...
Answer: will not be included because "...if we start shipping all useful plug-ins our builds will become huge. " ...

..... anger comes
Aha. Including gimp-lqr-plugin in WLA-Gimp ... that's ok. But including a powerful plugin which provides great functionality will blow up the build? Should I count the bytes a plugin will take? Oh sorry, I forgot: gimp-lqr-plugin is included by default in MacPorts. Or is gimp-lqr-plugin included it because WLA want's to follow the defaults and nobody knows how to drop nodoka out of the gimp Portfile and so it came to compile and build these ports manually? (hard to follow...? Take a look at the Portfile in "graphics/gimp" and compare this to the build instructions on WLA) But then, why dropping macfile-gimp and xsane? It's a default in MacPorts. Does nobody need xsane? Or has it crashed?
Questions. Even more questions
about preferences to "interpolation lanczos".
You can expect it, I know:
Will not be included, because "we're the official build so I'd rathe keep the defaults..."
Does anybody remember the discussions about the new default setting in Gimp 2.6 for the toolbox window? "Official" default is "utility window". Period.
What did I do when I build the "rc1" package? I didn't touch the new default setting and tried to give advice to users asking about how to change this. Imagine what WLA want's? Changing the defaults!
Ok, I got some "positive" answer too.
Version checking / Info.plist
"Good change. This is one I'll merge (or duplicate if it turns out to be easier)"
... merging! Of course. This looks more like a "native WLA improvement"..... no more comments...
And finally the big question "Gimp 2.6 for Mac?"
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2909Everyone was waiting for 2.6. So I tried hard, released "rc1" and asked for help to test it on other computers than mine. As far as I remeber, this had never happend before on WLA. No tests in real life situations prior to releases of final builds.
BTW, thanks to everybody who tested this release. Thank you.
And then came: "Portfiles please, portfiles please".
What did I do? I wrote a very detailed posting, including all scripts and everything I had done to make compiling and packaging easier and tried to give support on how to adopt it to Tiger. Guess what happens?
These scripts and the portfile hierarchy was taken almost literally to SVN. I mean. Portfiles! No bug fixes, no improvements, no new features for Gimp. Portfiles and build scripts.
Of course, I released them as GPLed software and the GPL allows you to use, distribute, improve and modify them. But coping literally AND RENAMING... puuh. Maybe the GPL will give you these rights too. I don't know. But IMO that doesn't matter. Simply copying scripts almost literally (BTW, including a typo... wow, great work) and renaming them, appears to me more like you're claiming these scripts as your own work. This is no "good practice".
And why should anybody upload an already online available build to another site? The web is about linking information, not grabbing information on one site! HTTP. HyperTextTransferProtocol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HypertextOr is it more like claiming the build as a "WLA release"?
But not enough.
Because users really couldn't await downloading Gimp 2.6, I got heavy load on my site and so much traffic that I had to find I quick solution for hosting the *dmg elsewhere. You know, I may have to pay for this traffic. So I decided to use Mediafire. Why? Because I thought that one day this build may be hosted on WLA and then I will be able to delete it from Mediafire, so no other site, which will now link to this build, will confuse users in the future why there is another Gimp 2.6 bundle.
Trust me, it would have been easy for me to upload it to SF in the first place - I'm on SF for years and you can take a look at
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gimponosx too, where you can see that this project was registered in Dec. 2007 - but this IMO would have brought even more confusion to users. Another site on SF dealing with Gimp packages. But what did I get? Laughter about using Mediafire. Wow!
So now the build is on SF, and as you might know, where it can't be deleted.... I don't want people to laugh at me... not after all this work, not after all this time working on Gimp. I've been working with Christoph on buidling Gimp since the very beginnings, even before WLA had started...
And finally,
you're blaming _ME_ not to collaborate? That _I_ split efforts? That _I_ don't do team work? And _I_ am responsible that WLA has very little use anymore?
Who shared every information, enhancements and new scripts? Who wrote postings with hundreds of lines describing everything in detail? Who placed several links on websites including most pages on my site to point to WLA?
This is no team work? This has nothing to do with collaboration? This splits efforts? Makes WLA useless?
What about including and dropping packages at will? Not placing links? Not updating SVN with improvements? What about copying foreign code and renaming it? Ah, you "... thought it was clearer what their purpose is". Is this team work? Why not asking me? I wrote those scripts. Really. I know why they have these names. Yes, I do. I have the copyright and bave you rights to do various things. Period. Wanna learn more? Read the GPL.
Now you're willing to give me high privs on SVN. Why now? Worried about getting stuck on a "useless" site?
You see that I'm very angry, no, more than just very angry, about all those things that had happend the last few days. But I think I had to tell it, so that some things may have been cleared up.
At least from _my_ point of view.
As I love open source software I will still continue to support the free software community by posting bug fixes, searching for improvements or helping others to make great software even better. But currently I just want to go back to have pleasure with this brand new versions of Gimp, back to the pleasure, the last few days have taken away...
Now you can flame me.
-skl