They are nearly the same as initially, except that now they include an
intermediate stamp header which will be generated by the build system.
The only 2 enums which don't need these includes (and are not versioned)
are libgimp/gimpenums.c and libgimpthumb/gimpthumb-enums.c.
This was missing ever since commit 505a78e715 but we weren't seeing this
by using meson. I opened the report #8145 for us to handle this
regression of the build system.
We take a step back from the original MR which was proposing the "single
dot" cursor as a new "Pointer mode" option. I was really unsure this was
the best solution, especially reading again the whole original report.
It means that now nearly all of the original patch has been rewritten
another way, but let's leave the contributor commit as a start point to
get to where we are, and as acknowledgement of the contribution.
The reporter was annoyed by the crosshair when none were requested and
probably mostly for painting tools only (at least examples were about
brush or pencil, etc.) while showing outline. It looks to me like the
real issue was maybe when we were showing the big crosshair when using
the 4-arc fallback outline, for instance when using a dynamics changing
size. If so, this main issue is already fixed by my commit 64dc26064b.
No need of a new option for this, especially if the option can be as
confusing as a barely visible dot-cursor (I can already imagine the bug
reports of people tweaking random preferences and unhappy because the
pointer became invisible, while they don't know how they did it).
Instead I would say that when people specifically uncheck both "Show
brush outline" and "Show pointer" options, showing a huge crosshair
feels quite counter-productive. This is where I think that our small
unobtrusive cursor (probably a better name than "Single dot" by the way,
as it's not a single dot anymore) might be of use, the ultimate case
when someone really want a cursor as inconspicuous as possible, while
still having a visible feedback of the pointer position (even with
display-tablets, parallax issues make such a visual feedback important
to target where one paints).
So let's try this first and see how it goes.
… in previous commit.
Also fix some coding style bugs.
Finally change s/"Single Dot"/"Single dot"/ to have the same label
syntax (only capitalize the first letter of the label) as other labels.
Cf. #7034 and !466.
More of the files were wrong, or at least not absolutely identical to
the files generated by the autotools. I am not doing any code change
other than trying to make both build systems produce identical files
(except for slight differences on 2 files not worth the effort) even
though maybe some things can be improved (especially on the include
list). Maybe to be improved later.
Also fixing 2 of the previously autotools-generated files because of
space typos which should have been committed earlier.
Finally it is to be noted that there is no logics to copy the generated
files back to the source directory in the meson rules. I am not sure
anyway this is really worth it and maybe we should just stop tracking
these generated files eventually.
With GTK+3, high or low density is taken care by the screen scale
factor. Having a separate preferences for this is redundant, and likely
even wrong.
It may be interesting though to have a new preference later, which would
allow smaller scale icon sizing since some people like their icon
slightly smaller or bigger, and also when you are using screens whose
density is at a limit scale factor. Right now, this can be done through
themes, but a GUI settings may be interesting. If I add such feature,
let's just do it from scratch later.
We check them into git, so this makes it easier to keep them in
sync when using a separate build directory.
Case in point -- this commit also syncs a few enum files that went
out-of-sync with their headers.
- don't include <gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf.h> in headers in app/
- instead, include it in many .c files instead of <glib-object.h>,
finally acknowledging the fact that app/ depends on gdk-pixbuf almost
globally
- fix up includes as if libgimpbase depended in GIO, which it soon will
In order to make a clear separation between the core modules and the
UI modules, move the necessary enums from display-enums.h and
widgets-enums.h to config-enums.h and the files
gimpdisplayoptions.[ch] from the display to the config module. This
removes the config -> display dependency.
This change has three main benefits
* It lets us remove includes of display files from the config module
* We don't have to link gimp-console and test-config with a subset of
object files from the display module
* It is reflected in devel-docs/gimp-module-dependencies.svg that the
application is made up of core modules and UI modules and that no
core module depends on any UI module
Jehan