On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:27:17PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:
> On Sunday 11 December 2005 05:25, Manish Singh wrote:
> > I put thought into it. As I pointed out in my other mail, it seems
> > like you're the one who didn't think things through before sending
> > out emails.
> > A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or
> > indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's
> > dependency specification is broken.
> > SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples
> > that have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config,
> > aalib being linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a
> > few more I can't recall off the top of my head right now.
> > Please next time actually read and comprehend what's going on in the
> > thread instead of sending out poorly researched knee-jerk defenses of
> > your pet Linux distro.
> > -Yosh
> > _______________________________________________
> I'm convinced you like whatever distro you're using as I do mine, but
> I'm also very sure you haven't done much research into what you are
> commenting about.
>From the rpmfind.net page for the gimp-devel package for SuSE 9.2
* rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
* rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
* rpmlib(PayloadIsBzip2) = 3.0.5-1
That's it. No glib2-devel or gtk2-devel listed at all. This seems fixed
in SuSE 10, but not completely, as they still miss depending on GIMP
BandiPat, I expect a full and public apology from you for your personal
attacks and your own lack of research.
Gimp-user mailing list