On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:03:52PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > my question was about the logic which lead to this condition of this
> > gimp and its ability to install different versions, side by side.
> > like the good old days.
> I am sorry but I think I answered that question. Which part of the
> answer did you not understand? I've quoted my answer below.
> > > "That's the reason that gimp-2.1 cannot be installed into the same
> > > prefix as gimp-2.0. It's supposed to replace it. Currently there's
> > > the temporary condition that gimp-2.1 installs quite some things
> > > into directories versioned as 2.1. This is supposed to be changed
> > > back to 2.0 when gimp-2.2 is ready."
> I admit that "temporary condition" probably doesn't make much sense
> but that was me using your words. What I was trying to say is that the
> current behaviour of installing things into directories versioned
> "2.1" is going to be reverted for 2.2. If possible, everything will go
> into the same directories that gimp-2.0 uses.
well, it appears to be a choice between explaining logic to the other
person i found in this world who had some or reproducing a bug and
begging for search words on a different list.
which would you choose?
Gimp-user mailing list