On Wed, 3 May 2000, Marc Lehmann <pcg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 08:15:44PM +0200, Raphael Quinet <quinet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I tried to use the Perl-Fu scripts in 1.1.21 and I saw that all of
> > them abort with the following error displayed on the console:
> >
> > ** ERROR (recursed) **: could not find handler for message: 65536
> > aborting...
>
> This happens to any plug-in that doesn't get recompiled when a protocol
> bump occurs. Recompiling the perl plug-in would fix that.
Well, for some reason it didn't, that's why I reported the bug.
I extracted gimp-1.1.21.tar.gz in a new directory and built everything
from there. Then I removed everything from the previous installation
of the Gimp in ${prefix}/lib/gimp and ${prefix}/share/gimp and I did a
"make install".
That's why I am surprised to get this problem: I double-checked that I
had no old files in the plug-ins directory before reporting this
strange bug. The only files that are in the plug-in-path came from a
fresh install of 1.1.21. I also re-did a "make" and "make install" in
the source tree to be sure that I was not dreaming. :-)
> > Marc, I suppose that you are aware of this and that you can fix it?
>
> If you give me a log-in on your machine I could fix it ;)
I could give you a username and password, but that would not help you
because the firewall blocks everything. :-) Even I cannot log in from
home. But if you want to come and say hello, I can give you my work
address and a roadmap of the area. ;-)
Err... Seriously, do you or anybody on this list have any idea of
what could be causing this strange problem? Can anyone report a
successful or unsuccessful installation of 1.1.21 with Perl enabled?
My setup is:
Solaris 2.6
perl5.005_03
PDL-2.003
Parse-RecDescent-1.70
Gtk-Perl-0.6123
glib-1.2.7
gtk+-1.2.7
gimp-1.1.21
> > being mixed with the C plug-ins. Now it seems to be the contrary: the
> > Perl-Fu scripts are listed first in each menu, followed by the usual C
> > plug-ins. This is very distracting.
>
> Hmm... I wonder how the order in the menus is being worked out by the
> Gimp? Registration order? Alphabetical? Being able to control the sort
> order in some sensible way is highly desirable indeed, but will definitely
> not happen in 1.2 (IMHO it's very difficult).
>
> What happened in your case might have been that all the C-plug-ins
> (that were reinstalled) registered below the existing plug-ins and the
> perl-plug-ins (which you haven't reinstalled) moved to the top.
Unfortunately, this is not what happened. As I said, all the plug-ins
and scripts came from the new 1.1.21 package. I just checked a second
time by deleting my ~/.gimp-1.1/pluginrc and the Perl-Fu scripts
register again before the C plug-ins. This appears to be new,
although I do not know when this behavior was introduced because the
previous version (1.1.20) had another problem with the Perl-Fu scripts
and they crashed before registering.
> > a menu is mapped to a C or Perl plug-in. They behave slightly
> > differently (e.g. undo is not always supported, there is a delay of a
> > couple of seconds before the plug-in starts)
>
> This describe the behaviour of a subclass of all perl scripts. _Some_ C
> plug-ins behave the same, btw, as well.
>
> If you look at earlier discussions of this and related points you'll see that
> a seperate menu hierarchy hardly makes sense.
The same arguments apply to Script-Fu as well, however there is still
a separate menu hierarchy for these scripts. But maybe a separate
menu hierarchy is not the best solution...
> OTOH, I'd be all for some visible indication in the menus itself (although
> I am not 100% of wether that makes sense ;) It does not have any
> drawbacks, however).
I don't know if it makes sense, but I would like to have some kind of
indication before 1.2 is released. I was hoping that some people on
this list could reply with good suggestions...
> > for a vote or anything like that, but I would like to hear some
> > opinions... (no flames please)
>
> This has been discussed many times on this list already...
I know, but the final release of 1.2 is just around the corner now and
several things have changed since the last time these things were
discussed.
Also, I have the feeling that many people (not you, of course) do not
care too much about the Perl-Fu scripts and do not even test them. I
am sure that I am not the only one who is worried about the overall
consistency of the user interface, but I am surprised by the lack of
comments about Perl-Fu... Where are the "many eyeballs" that ensure
that "all bugs are shallow"?
-Raphael
