> Von: "lode leroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
> >From: Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "lode leroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
> >Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
> >Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:48:10 +0300
> >
> >lode leroy writes:
> >  > In fact, what happens is that when linking with ZLIB.DLL,
> >  > the exe expects ZLIB-1.DLL instead of ZLIB1.DLL. (or vice-versa).
> >
> >The official zlib dll is called zlib1.dll. Any other name means it is
> >not official. "Official" as in directly from real maintainer of
> >zlib. As the actual maintainer of zlib distributes Win32 zlib
> >binaries, I fail to see any reason why one would want to use anybody
> >else's version. I have only zlib1.dll on my system.
> 
> I agree with you Tor, but as the original poster wrote,
> it is very difficult to set up a build enviroment with everything
> correct to compile gimp (or other gtk based software for that matter)
> 
> Libraries and dependencies are changing, and the available binaries
> are sometimes not correctly packaged with missing or incorrect .m4 or .pc 
> files
> (especially the fontconfig and freefont,i.e. the one's you don't
> distribute 
> :-)

We should then let the packagers know... maybe they just don't get the right
hints? For example, gnuwin32 had these naming problems, and there is a way
to report bugs. I recall that the .a files of libxml2 were not usable with
the MinGW linker, this could be reported also...



HTH,
Michael

-- 
5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to