On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 12:16:33AM +0100, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > new, local instance should start to open that file, since the remote
> > one can't load that file. But if the remote protocol just looks for a
> > gimp window, it will try to use the existing gimp instance to open the
> > file. Unsuccessfully.
>
> Yes, I understood that. And I said that we already have exactly this
> problem with the current implementation, so it can probably not become
> worse.
>
> Daniel mentioned problems that could be caused by moving the
> gimp-remote functionality to the gimp binary. I asked him to explain
> what kind of problems that would be. I don't know why you answered to
> this question since it appears that your answer was unrelated.
I am sorry to get off-topic, but in your recent posts (weeks) you became
very very unfriendly towards other people who want to be helpful. I find
his answer very related, as he explained a problem that your proposed
change would result in, which is basically what you asked.
Now, if you don't want to hear about problems, why are you asking in the
first place?
--
The choice of a
-----==- _GNU_
----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ pcg@xxxxxxxx
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE
