On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:49:43PM -0500, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
>    From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>    Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:36:29 +0100
>    Robert L Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>    > There could be plenty of other reasons why, of course.  But it isn't
>    > FUD for people to report that they're having problems compiling and
>    > running GTK 2.6 against a particular distribution.  Multiple people
>    > reporting the same thing suggests there's an issue, but doesn't
>    > pinpoint where it is.
>    I am only asking that you show us what problems exactly you have when
>    building gtk+, so that we can help you to solve them. Saying that
>    there are "a lot of problems" doesn't help at all and is what I would
>    consider spreading FUD. We are trying to move GIMP development along
>    and we will need to use GTK+-2.6 to make this happen. So it should be
>    our goal to make sure that all developers update glib and gtk+.
>    Telling them that this update will cause problems, but not saying what
>    problems these are, doesn't help anyone.
> It's been a while since I tried it (when GIMP 2.2 came out), so I
> don't remember for certain what happened.  It may have even been
> something getting confused about /usr vs. /usr/local (in which case it
> wouldn't be a GTK problem at all), but I honestly don't remember.

Fairly likely. Mixing libraries and headers in system paths often leads
to trouble.

There's always the option of sticking things into non-system dirs (e.g.,
$HOME/devel) using ./configure --prefix, and setting PATH,
LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and PKG_CONFIG_PATH. On several machines I use, I stick
the HEAD versions of glib, gtk+ etc., along with HEAD gimp there.

Doing this makes it much harder to do whatever catastrophic screwups
people do that messes up their working system. One can install the new
gtk+ just for gimp and be fine.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to