Re: [Gimp-developer] More Windows Newbie Build Problems
Chris Share wrote: I'm currently using Pango version 1.10.1 which is in the gtk/2.8 folder. There isn't a windows folder in the 2.9 folder however there are later versions of Pango. Should I use one of these? Chris, The 2.9 folder is the development version of GTK. 2.8 is the latest stable series of GTK and would be the best version to compile against. In any event, you're not going to find Windows binaries of 2.9 for a while. At least, that's what seems to be typical. Just grab the latest binaries from the 2.8 series. While the latest binary versions of GTK for Windows haven't been posted yet, you should be able to get by with what's available. I don't know anything about the build script. I found it at http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/HowToCompileGimp/MicrosoftWindows?highlight=%28windows%29 If this script in only a convenience, what's the recommended way of building the GIMP on Windows? This script is a convenience tool. As a matter of fact, even the CompileGIMP.sh script is a convenience tool. You could manually follow the instructions from the script to install MSys, MinGW, and ActivePerl to compile GIMP against, but as mentioned previously in this thread, manually building your compile environment can be more troublesome than anything else when compiling in Windows. And CompileGIMP.sh (unless it's been updated recently) only references libraries and files from GTK 2.6. That's fine unless you plan to compile the GIMP 2.3 series from tarball or CVS. They require GTK 2.8. Hope this helps. Lance ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] More Windows Newbie Build Problems
Chris Share wrote: OK, I've grabbed all the latest versions of the libs that I could find. I'm now getting the following error: checking for GLIB - version = 2.8.0... no *** Could not run GLIB test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the *** exact error that occured. This usually means GLIB is incorrectly installed. configure: error: Test for GLIB failed. See the file 'INSTALL' for help. OK. Script is finished now. Earlier, the output is as follows: I wish I could say, Chris. The last time I was able to compile GIMP with MinGW and MSys, I was using GLib 2.8.0. When I upgraded to GLib 2.8.3 it stopped working and I never saw fit to try fixing it. Maybe it's a foregone conclusion, but I assumed that it had to be something with GLib 2.8.3+ as it worked fine last time I tried with GLib 2.8.0. There seems to be something wrong with glib--any suggestions about how to fix this? Cheers, Chris ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Tor Lillqvist wrote: It would be possible, but wouldn't such a zipfile just create open up the possibility for even more confusion when there would then be yet another distribution of these libs? Tor, You're right. Alternative packages always open up the possibility for more confusion when there are already so many Win32 binaries. Honestly though, I'd be willing to accept such a potential for confusion to find a packaged set of reliable Win32 binaries that would work with each other in a MinGW/Msys environment and provide a means of compiling GIMP from CVS/Tarball on Win32 without having to spend hours researching, compiling, and downloading to get the environment setup correctly. For that matter, when I'm looking for reliable Win32 binaries, your packages are amongst the top 3 I would trust. Of course, finding such a zip anywhere would nearly be a godsend regardless of who compiled and packaged the binaries just because of the fact that it's so hard to find all the binaries you need in a Win32 environment in the first place. I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make this easier, but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the professional world. My guess is that's the case for many Windows users who would like to be able to compile from tarball/CVS without such hassles as we've described here. Grant that I don't speak for everyone using Win32, but I'd imagine you'd see a positive reception from such an endeavor from more than one Win32 user. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
this is so interesting. Win32 has succeeded in making linux expensive. you are asking that the Win32 environment not work the way it was designed to work -- at least i think this is what you are saying. i am very impressed that it was able to make free software expensive, this is a simply amazing accomplishment! Carol, Where in my e-mail did your read that *Linux *was going to cost me money? Read that sentence again. Or, better yet, I'll quote it. I should also clarify that I have considered switching to Linux to make this easier, *but I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do so without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the professional world.* Did I say that the money, time, and hardware I was going to invest was going to be invested in buying Linux or did I just say that I would have to invest money, time, and hardware into a Linux setup? Here's a few things that cost money that fit perfectly into that sentence. * Time * A spare hard drive * A reliable partition manager (instead of a drive) * Perhaps an alternate computer entirely * Potential other hardware for those components that Linux drivers don't function well on. Before I sign off on this, let me quote the second half of that sentence again. **But I just don't have the time, money, and hardware to do so *without destroying the Win32 environment I'm required to use in the professional world.* So that pretty much eliminates installing over top of my current OS. Lance ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Hal V. Engel wrote: If all you need is enough of a Linux installation to get GIMP to build and to test GIMP then the amount of diskspace needed to do this is fairly small and you can free up a partition on your existing hard drive(s) to do this. Good point. I thought of doing this myself, but in the past I've had to repartition my hard drive before a Linux install. Do most Linux distros now come equipped with a partition manager that can handle an NT partition and successfully resize it without destroying it? When I've previously done this, I've had to use Partition Magic which is the best proprietary software for this sort of thing, but even it had bugs in some prior versions that would crash an NT partition. If most Linux distros now come equipped with such a partition manager and I can trust that my NT partition will safely remain intact, I may reconsider my former statement. But my biggest concern is that, at present, without a partition manager, I've still got to invest another $50 on top of losses due to time. Not that that's a huge investment, but I've got other financial priorities that exceed an investment in a Partition Manager. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Lance ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Thanks John. This should help tremendously. Just two other questions then... 1) Is there a way to get python to work on Windows AND is it even necessary to build GIMP? 2) Where do I install/unzip the all the auto tools? Should I just unzip them to a location in MinGW and use the export command to include those directories? I'm assuming that I don't need a special Win32 build of these tools so I've just downloaded them from their respective locations. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know so I can get the right copies. Thanks. Lance John Cupitt wrote: On 9/28/05, Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At this point, I'd like a little help or direction about compiling GIMP in a Win32 environment with MinGW, MSys, and ActivePerl. It's not GIMP, but I wrote a HOWTO a couple of days ago for building my gtk+ app under mingw: http://wiki.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/bin/view/Main/VipsMingw For GIMP, don't install fftw. You'll need to install some other libraries too, http://gimp.org/source has a list. I really wouldn't carelessly copy DLLs over from previous versions, I think you're sure to find yourself in a very bad, mysterious place. That should be enough to be able to build from a distribution tarball ... if you need to build from CVS, it'll be quite a bit more difficult since you'll need to set up all the auto tools stuff as well. I'm not a windows person so I probably made it more difficult than it needs to be. But I did end up with a binary that seems stable. John ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
I compiled GIMP 2.3.4 from tarball the other day and I've noticed a few things. 1) The last 2 times I've compiled GIMP, I've found my installation missing some key libraries at the end of the build. Is this normal? (Missing libraries differed each time) To fix it I pulled libraries from my stable GIMP 2.2 installation and that seems to work but some odd things occur in the build that I wouldn't expect - even of a development release. 2) One of those odd things is that the entire layer dialog is non-responsive. No lock ups or anything, it just sits there, does nothing (even when layers are created, etc), and doesn't accept commands. Is this to be expected in the 2.3.4 release or should I expect that something else is wrong. Here are my system specs Windows XP SP2, GTK+ 2.6.9 MinGW, MSys, ActivePerl I built GIMP 2.3.4 with Glib 2.8.0 and GTK+ 2.6.9. I also used atk 1.9.0 and pango 1.8.2 The other dependencies (for various plugins) were the latest stable versions that I could find. Any ideas what might cause this type of behavior? Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example, and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future. What's all this fuss? There is absolutely no reason why we should cripple any GIMP release, development version or not, by doing such silly things. This is Free Software. We are distributing it as source code. If someone wants to build binaries and distribute them, so be it. You might not have noticed yet, but binary distribution of the GIMP 2.3 series is not in any way discouraged. Of course we appreciate if pacakagers make it clear that they are distributing an unfinished development release but that's something we can only ask for. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release. Does anyone know what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release? ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that would be... mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux. If I could figure out how to compile from CVS on Win32, I definitely would. Of course, I'm just going on the info I found at wiki.gimp.org that said that compiling from CVS required additional software. Then again, maybe I'm just overcomplicating this. Is it as simple as downloading the source from CVS and compiling it? And for that matter, if that's the case, is there an easy way to download the source from CVS? Thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer. Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release. Does anyone know what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release? Whenever I get around to do it, which will hopefully be this weekend. But, seriously, why don't you just use CVS? Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Ahhh... Thanks to all who've responded... I guess I'm getting lost at what packages to download from CVS and in what directories to place them... At present, I've already used Msys to compile GIMP 2.3.3 from a tarball. Since I've never tried compiling from CVS, I wasn't sure IF I would need other software... (Right now I have ActivePerl, Msys, and MinGW per the wiki). More importantly though, I wasn't sure what source to download and to what folders. Can you guys point me in the right direction? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, you can safely follow the instructions at http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/HowToCompileGimp/MicrosoftWindows you just need to modify the supplied CompileGimp.sh updating the lines listing GTK_PACKAGES and MINGW_PACKAGES as there are more recent versions avaliable, mine are: # Names of packages and versions. GTK_PACKAGES=#8221;glib-2.6.5 glib-dev-2.6.5 gtk+-2.6.8 gtk+-dev-2.6.8 pango-1.8.0 pango-dev-1.8.0 atk-1.9.0 atk-dev-1.9.0#8243; MINGW_PACKAGES=#8221;libpng-1.2.8-bin libpng-1.2.8-dep libpng-1.2.8-lib jpeg-6b-4-bin jpeg-6b-4-dep jpeg-6b-4-lib tiff-3.7.3-bin tiff-3.7.3-lib freetype-2.1.10-bin freetype-2.1.10-lib zlib-1.2.3-bin zlib-1.2.3-lib libgw32c-0.4-lib libiconv-1.8-1-bin libiconv-1.8-1-lib#8221; don#8217;t forget to update also GIMP_PACKAGE and GIMP_BASE also change the final compile command to suit your environment (the prefix): echo #8220;Building and installing The GimpShop#8221; ./configure #8211;disable-print #8211;disable-python #8211;prefix=/YOURFOLDERHERE make make install Be warned, compilation takes some time #8230; I#8217;ll make GIMP 2.3.3 available on eMule sooner or later. Hope this helps If the automatic download with wget doesn't work just download the packages by hand and place them in the temp directory mentioned in the script, then comment the wget line and rerun it, it will decompress and install them just fine. Hope this helps paolo Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto Actually... I was trying to figure out what the best way to do that would be... mostly because I run GIMP in a Win32 environment, so compiling GIMP isn't quite as straightforward as it is in Linux. If I could figure out how to compile from CVS on Win32, I definitely would. Of course, I'm just going on the info I found at wiki.gimp.org that said that compiling from CVS required additional software. Then again, maybe I'm just overcomplicating this. Is it as simple as downloading the source from CVS and compiling it? And for that matter, if that's the case, is there an easy way to download the source from CVS? Thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer. Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, Lance Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've been testing GIMP 2.3.3 and I noticed that some of the changes of late have indicated we're nearing a 2.3.4 release. Does anyone know what timeframe we're looking at for the 2.3.4 release? Whenever I get around to do it, which will hopefully be this weekend. But, seriously, why don't you just use CVS? Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
