I've been hearing rumblings about people using Wine to run windows photoshop plugins on Linux Gimp, but hadn't seen anything concrete. Well, here it is: http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/pspi.html Have a look. Congratulations, Wine! - Dan
-- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 22:46 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/pspi.html Have a look. Congratulations, Wine!
This is really great! I wanted to do this some time ago, but without looking at GIMP, I thought that GIMP plugins are .so's which would have made it a lot harder. But since they are processes, simply recompiling with winegcc should do the trick. And indeed it does!
We should start keeping track on the wiki (or the Winelib page) of these porting efforts.
On 3/31/06, Dimi Paun dimi@lattica.com wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 22:46 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/pspi.html Have a look. Congratulations, Wine!
This is really great! I wanted to do this some time ago, but without looking at GIMP, I thought that GIMP plugins are .so's which would have made it a lot harder. But since they are processes, simply recompiling with winegcc should do the trick. And indeed it does!
We should start keeping track on the wiki (or the Winelib page) of these porting efforts.
FWIW, I have a page of success stories at http://kegel.com/wine/isv/#case-studies and I've added this to it.
Incidentally, the port of PSPI used winelib for no obvious reason. Wouldn't it have been more robust just to use Wine? - Dan
-- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
From: "Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com
Incidentally, the port of PSPI used winelib for no obvious reason. Wouldn't it have been more robust just to use Wine?
But it is using wine, that's what Winelib does :) One can try with the PE version of PSPI I suppose... But this way it is fully buildable on Linux, without the need to have MingW installed. This is likely important for distributions.
On 3/31/06, Dimi Paun dimi@lattica.com wrote:
Incidentally, the port of PSPI used winelib for no obvious reason. Wouldn't it have been more robust just to use Wine?
But it is using wine, that's what Winelib does :) One can try with the PE version of PSPI I suppose... But this way it is fully buildable on Linux, without the need to have MingW installed. This is likely important for distributions.
If a distribution ships this and a matching copy of Wine, and stays up to date, perhaps. But the more common situation at the moment is that the Wine from the distribution is way old and crappy, and the user has to install a newer Wine, which is (surprise!) incompatible with any Winelib apps they have installed. MUCH more robust from the user's point of view to use the PE (.exe) vesion of PSPI; then it would work even if the user has the audacity to update Wine. - Dan
-- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
On 3/31/06, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Incidentally, the port of PSPI used winelib for no obvious reason. Wouldn't it have been more robust just to use Wine?
But it is using wine, that's what Winelib does :) One can try with the PE version of PSPI I suppose... But this way it is fully buildable on Linux, without the need to have MingW installed. This is likely important for distributions.
If a distribution ships this and a matching copy of Wine, and stays up to date, perhaps.
A worse problem is that PSPI can't be built without a closed source, non-redistributable SDK (IIRC). So there's not even a buildability advantage to using Winelib in this caase. - Dan
On Friday 31 March 2006 10:24, Dan Kegel wrote:
On 3/31/06, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Incidentally, the port of PSPI used winelib for no obvious reason. Wouldn't it have been more robust just to use Wine?
But it is using wine, that's what Winelib does :)
[. . .]
If a distribution ships this and a matching copy of Wine, and stays up to date, perhaps.
A worse problem is that PSPI can't be built without a closed source, non-redistributable SDK (IIRC).
You're correct. Someone needs to start a project to write an open source replacement for that SDK, then. I hope it's less of a job than say wine is :) Probably whoever has that SDK could write documentation for the underlying API, someone else would write the headers, link libs and whatever glue code needed, and would post it under BSD or somesuch.
Cheers, Kuba
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:15:20AM -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
From: "Dan Kegel" dank@kegel.com
Incidentally, the port of PSPI used winelib for no obvious reason. Wouldn't it have been more robust just to use Wine?
But it is using wine, that's what Winelib does :) One can try with the PE version of PSPI I suppose... But this way it is fully buildable on Linux, without the need to have MingW installed. This is likely important for distributions.
As far as I understood you need Photoshop SDK headers to build it, right?
Ciao, Marcus
From: "Marcus Meissner" meissner@suse.de
As far as I understood you need Photoshop SDK headers to build it, right?
Indeed, I forgot about that. Hey, at least Tor seemed to had fun compiling the thing via Winelib :)
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 11:21 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
From: "Marcus Meissner" meissner@suse.de
As far as I understood you need Photoshop SDK headers to build it, right?
Indeed, I forgot about that. Hey, at least Tor seemed to had fun compiling the thing via Winelib :)
Bummer. I was looking forward to making this into a .deb and putting it into Ubuntu universe, too.
Oh well, Scott Ritchie
On 3/31/06, Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org wrote:
As far as I understood you need Photoshop SDK headers to build it, right?
Bummer. I was looking forward to making this into a .deb and putting it into Ubuntu universe, too.
Nothing's stopping you from putting it in, er, Ubuntu Multiverse, though, is there?
If you do, I'd recommend packaging up the .exe rather than the .exe.so. - Dan
-- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 18:53 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
On 3/31/06, Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org wrote:
As far as I understood you need Photoshop SDK headers to build it, right?
Bummer. I was looking forward to making this into a .deb and putting it into Ubuntu universe, too.
Nothing's stopping you from putting it in, er, Ubuntu Multiverse, though, is there?
If you do, I'd recommend packaging up the .exe rather than the .exe.so.
- Dan
Other than my lack of the Photoshop SDK headers, no ;)
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
On 3/31/06, Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org wrote:
Nothing's stopping you from putting it in, er, Ubuntu Multiverse, though, is there?
If you do, I'd recommend packaging up the .exe rather than the .exe.so.
Other than my lack of the Photoshop SDK headers, no ;)
Unless I'm mistaken, the Ubuntu Multiverse contains packages like Adobe Acrobat Reader, so clearly the lack of source should not be an impediment to getting a .exe into a .deb in Multiverse. - Dan
-- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
-
Dan Kegel -
Dimi Paun -
Kuba Ober -
Marcus Meissner -
Scott Ritchie