On 20101219_145122, Riccardo Stagni wrote: > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 02:54:54AM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > > It worked. It took a while to get libgd2-xpm-dev installed on my system > > because I had previously installed gnuplot. Gnuplot install had > > automatically > > installed libgd2-noxpm and the two are incompatible. Of course, gnuplot > > counld have installed libgd2-xpm, but that is not how the package install > > script is written. > > I don't know much at all about writing a successful Debian package, but I > > imagine this behavior of the gnuplot package will provide an interesting > > extra challenge. > > gnuplot depends on "libgd2-noxpm (>= 2.0.36~rc1~dfsg) | libgd2-xpm (>= > 2.0.36~rc1~dfsg)", so it should not be a problem. Installing > libgd2-xpm-dev with aptitude, it just asks me if it should remove libgd2-noxpm > (without saying anything about gnuplot because of its dependencies). > > Anyway, if dataplot doesn't need to write xpm files, you could simply have > installed libgd2-noxpm-dev. > > ciao > Riccardo
With libgd2-noxpm-dev installed, I got errors during compile complaining that compiler could not include gd.h . This, I think, is a defect in the dataplot compile script, but it is a fact. My work-around was to figure out how to get libgd2-xpm-dev installed, and then re-install gnuplot, which seems to have no problem using -xpm. Not having ever seen Dataplot functioning, I cannot know whether it needs to write xpm files. Because of the compile error, I never got to confronting that issue. I supposed I could have told the script that libgd was not available, but then I would not get to see the full capability of the software. I am installing it in order to see how useful it is. It seems unfair to conduct such a test with a deliberately stripped down version. Cheers, -- Paul E Condon [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
