> Von: "lode leroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >From: Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "lode leroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >CC: [email protected] > >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 [email protected] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
