Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Sunday 18 July 2004 12:25, Sven Neumann wrote: I am sorry but SuSE 9.0 isn't recent and there shouldn't be a problem to install GIMP on a more recent version of SuSE I installed Gimp 2 on SUSE 9 without problems. I don't see anybody on the SUSE lists reporting problems with Gimp on 9.1. Really, on windows boxes as well, Gimp is easy to install. Using Gimp effectively takes longer to learn 8) ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Saturday 12 June 2004 02:17 am, Michael Schumacher wrote: Greg Rundlett wrote: With other platforms or distros, you're potentially going to run into blockers. These are issues that GIMP developers/testers/volunteers might want to address in a) an install script (if that is even possible) or b) an install guide. I expect the more 'polished' software to have installers that take care of the complexities. OpenOffice.org does a good job of hiding the complexities, and Mozilla has been more recently successful in this area as well. I think GIMP, and GTK are essential parts of the Free Software desktop, so I hope that any ordinary user can take advantage of them. All I am reporting is that it can be difficult to install GIMP. If I were capable of making it easier to install, I would. Well, it is hardly GIMP's job to care for all the requirements of the platform you're using... maybe you should complain on a Fedora mailing list instead? I disagree. We, as free software authors, benefit by making our software easy to install. By doing so, we encourage looky-lous to try out our software, and some day become users, then developers who further enhance our software. This is the way we grow. When we developers use a tool or library to make our work easier, it's our job to make it easy for the user to install that tool or library. Most Gimp users want to spend their brainpower on making new and interesting images -- not on getting the software installed. If Gimp relies on tools provided by the operating system or the gcc libraries, Gimp should find ways to make installation easy in environments of widely differing versions of these tools. SteveT Steve Litt Founder and acting president: GoLUG http://www.golug.org ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Hi, Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When we developers use a tool or library to make our work easier, it's our job to make it easy for the user to install that tool or library. We developers? I am sorry but I don't remember you being a GIMP developer. Perhaps you are using a different name here and I don't recognize you because of that. If you think that there are areas where GIMP needs improvements, please contribute. As soon as you have done some significant contributions, you may call yourself a GIMP developer. Most Gimp users want to spend their brainpower on making new and interesting images -- not on getting the software installed. If Gimp relies on tools provided by the operating system or the gcc libraries, Gimp should find ways to make installation easy in environments of widely differing versions of these tools. We do our best to provide portable source code that can be compiled on a variety of operating systems, compilers and tool-chains. And IMO we do a pretty good job at this. On most distributions GIMP comes pre-installed or is just one click (or command) away. Only if people insist on sticking to old and unmaintained software distributions they might run into problem trying to install GIMP. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
John Dietsch wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Greg Rundlett wrote: rob wrote: Rember you need all the -dev rpms if you want to compile stuff. It would be a much much beter idea for you to install the rpm. Ditching suse for debian would also be a good idea. I too had literally the worst experience thus far in my Linux life trying to install GIMP 2.0 on a Fedora Core distro. Some blame may go to FC and some to the GIMP website. I do NOT know enough about installing software and administering Linux systems to accurately identify what made my experience so dreadful. However, let me point out that it just 'worked' on Windows. All I had to do was download the exe installer for GTK and GIMP, install A before B, and it was done. On Fedora, I tried installing RPM, but had failed dependencies that I could *not* find. The point is this.it doesn't matter *why* it is difficult, it matters that it *is* difficult. The result is that people will not use the GIMP unless they are on Windows, or they are/have access to a Linux guru to install it. This is like deja-vu. I recently completed a thread with the exact same scenario, only using SuSe linux 9.0.My wife downloaded Gimp 2.01 on her Dell XP laptop, and it works...bingo! No problems, no configurations, no dependencies, no bulls---, it just works. I'm still screwing around trying to get it to work, but your point is 100% correct. If this extremely common situation is not resolved for the ordinary user, it will be yet one more example showing that Linux never got beyond the Geek stage. Robert Chopped Here Greg, For Fedora, you need to learn to use yum. If you installed FC from an RPM, it should already be there. Check in /etc for yum.conf . If it's not there, go to the source where you got the Fedora RPM and install yum. For the new Gimp you need to be in Fedora Core 2. As ROOT, do an update to be sure you are current with patches. yum -y update yum will check your system packages, for patches and dependancies, download the needed files, then run a test transaction to be sure it can succeed. Then it will do the installation. Running this on a regular basis will keep you up to date for any patches for vulnerabilities that have been found and corrected. To install Gimp run yum -y install gimp I hope this helps. John Dietsch ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 01:36:18PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Greg Rundlett wrote: The point is this.it doesn't matter *why* it is difficult, it matters that it *is* difficult. The result is that people will not use the GIMP unless they are on Windows, or they are/have access to a Linux guru to install it. This is like deja-vu. I recently completed a thread with the exact same scenario, only using SuSe linux 9.0.My wife downloaded Gimp 2.01 on her Dell XP laptop, and it works...bingo! No problems, no configurations, no dependencies, no bulls---, it just works. I'm still screwing around trying to get it to work, but your point is 100% correct. If this extremely common situation is not resolved for the ordinary user, it will be yet one more example showing that Linux never got beyond the Geek stage. was this ever a goal? this looks like bragging to me. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Maybe you want to try another distro. On my Debian box, I typed apt-get install gimp and it got installed. No problem there. Somewhere I read recently that if you switch to Debian, you'll be asking yourself Why didn't I do this sooner?I can vouch for that. A lot of times you see somebody say: (in reference to some application install problem) Hey why don't you just switch to [insert favorite distro], it rocks!. I do not generally recommend this sort of advice since the user has most likely invested a lot of effort into their current desktop/OS setup. It is also possible that they may need to use one distribution at work, so that using a different distribution at home could entail more learning, maintenance effort and problems than it is worth. With all the caveats mentioned, I am really happy that I've been able to switch to Debian, and that installing software applications on Debian (using apt) is a dream compared to the RPM way. (Maybe yum is like apt. I don't know, I've never tried yum on RedHat). This is all you have to do to install GIMP on Debian (Sarge) # echo deb http://mars.iti.pk.edu.pl/~jakub/dist/sarge ./ /etc/apt/sources.list # apt-get update # apt-get install gimp gimp-gap gimp-help-2 Anyway, here's my bit of advice to anyone installing GIMP: If you would like to try Debian (which has the advantage of being a GNU-linux distribution, not a commercial linux distribution), you will not have any difficulty installing GIMP 2.0.1. And (mostly as an aside-since this is a GIMP-user list) installing Debian is also quite a pleasure if you have a good Internet connection. I downloaded and burned the 51MB business-card CD iso instead of the usual 3 x 700MB iso download of other distributions. And did the install before going to bed. It sets up the basic system, then retrieves and installs all the other software packages while you're sleeping. In the morning, I finished answering a few questions, and my new system was ready to go. Maybe this is just like doing a network installl for RedHat, but I was always under the impression that you needed to setup your own network server to do a network install for RedHat. ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Greg Rundlett wrote: With other platforms or distros, you're potentially going to run into blockers. These are issues that GIMP developers/testers/volunteers might want to address in a) an install script (if that is even possible) or b) an install guide. I expect the more 'polished' software to have installers that take care of the complexities. OpenOffice.org does a good job of hiding the complexities, and Mozilla has been more recently successful in this area as well. I think GIMP, and GTK are essential parts of the Free Software desktop, so I hope that any ordinary user can take advantage of them. All I am reporting is that it can be difficult to install GIMP. If I were capable of making it easier to install, I would. Well, it is hardly GIMP's job to care for all the requirements of the platform you're using... maybe you should complain on a Fedora mailing list instead? Note that it is Debian's package management system and the Win32 installer that makes installing on Debian and Win32 easy, not The GIMP. HTH, Michael -- The GIMP http://www.gimp.org| IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp Sodipodi http://sodipodi.sf.net | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/sodipodi ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:36:19PM -0400, Greg Rundlett wrote: Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My hope is that the 'tricks' to installing on these notoriously difficult distributions can be added to GIMP.org. For example: Compiling from source is not recommended unless you know about X, Y, and Z. To learn more about X, Y, and Z, go here. You need -dev RPMs for all your tools and libraries. You can get those off your distro CDs if you have Source RPMs, or you can download them here.. Sven Neumann wrote: Nothing of this is GIMP specific. All just basic problems common to whatever software you compile. Why should this info be duplicated yet another time on the gimp.org web-site? I don't know. I guess I don't know where to find this info so if there is somewhere else on the net (e.g. tldp.org) where I can quickly learn the essentials that I'm going to need but are beyond the scope of the gimp.org download page, then it would be good to have a link to that reference source. For example, there is a 10-part HOWTO at tldp.org on compiling Apache from source (http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Apache-Compile-HOWTO/index.html) did you try to build the gimp from cvs as the instructions on the web site demonstrate? or are you just quoting the page? perhaps you are asking that someone fix the problems with the distribution you chose. if so, we would need more control over which linux you use. the gimp installs fairly easily on the free distribution, debian. as i type this, i have not installed gimp-2.1. developers version that has some issues sharing names. this was well explained. the only problems i have had with the gimp lately are with my distributions binary packages of the supporting software. the gimp developers have nothing to do with this. while this is unpleasant news, it is factual. Gimp.org tells me that compiling from source is not so hard as long as you have met these dependencieswhen I did download and install the dependencies, I found that there was a specific order for installing these (not addressed on gimp.org), and that there were also some dependencies of the dependencies that were not listed on gimp.org. The install for Windows XP, and Debian (Sarge) are frictionless. With other platforms or distros, you're potentially going to run into blockers. These are issues that GIMP developers/testers/volunteers might want to address in a) an install script (if that is even possible) or b) an install guide. people who buy their method of installing software need to talk to the people they purchased the software from. you are asking the wrong people for help. one of the things about the gimp is that the actual gimp libraries are not used by other apps. so it can easily be installed in /usr/local without the distribution managers opinion or knowledge. they are installed properly so that the same old linking software will find it in /usr/local if you run this properly. make spew itself tells you this. everytime make makes a new library, it sends a warning that the linking software needs to be run. it has been like this since i first compiled gimp in 1999. the gimp developers are not going to learn how to use garnome or yast or any of those other distribution installers; nor do they need to spend that much time to explain the brokeness of the installer. you are asking volunteers to clean up from something else you paid for. while you type these needs in a pleasant fashion, this will not change the facts you actually have. I expect the more 'polished' software to have installers that take care of the complexities. OpenOffice.org does a good job of hiding the complexities, and Mozilla has been more recently successful in this area as well. I think GIMP, and GTK are essential parts of the Free Software desktop, so I hope that any ordinary user can take advantage of them. these apps have been difficult for me to install. difficult and unpleasant. my mistake was because i blamed big bloated apps and debian. perhaps i should have complained right to the volunteers. if they had taken the time to explain to me that it was the version of debian i was using would this have been possibly unpleasant. it was a problem between the app and the distribution for my inability to install those gigantic things. hell, last i saw, open office has to install its own fonts. i do not consider this good software design. not what i learned from what to expect from my linux software. while they are answering your questions about the reasons your distribution fails, any day i might pop in with a bunch of complaints on how the gimp does not run on my dad's 486 very well. free software is best designed for smart people to run on every machine, not for one needy person to run with one distribution. your biggest problem, as near as i can determine is that you do not like the way your distribution installs things. there is a chance
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Greg Rundlett wrote: rob wrote: Rember you need all the -dev rpms if you want to compile stuff. It would be a much much beter idea for you to install the rpm. Ditching suse for debian would also be a good idea. I too had literally the worst experience thus far in my Linux life trying to install GIMP 2.0 on a Fedora Core distro. Some blame may go to FC and some to the GIMP website. I do NOT know enough about installing software and administering Linux systems to accurately identify what made my experience so dreadful. However, let me point out that it just 'worked' on Windows. All I had to do was download the exe installer for GTK and GIMP, install A before B, and it was done. On Fedora, I tried installing RPM, but had failed dependencies that I could *not* find. The point is this.it doesn't matter *why* it is difficult, it matters that it *is* difficult. The result is that people will not use the GIMP unless they are on Windows, or they are/have access to a Linux guru to install it. Chopped Here Greg, For Fedora, you need to learn to use yum. If you installed FC from an RPM, it should already be there. Check in /etc for yum.conf . If it's not there, go to the source where you got the Fedora RPM and install yum. For the new Gimp you need to be in Fedora Core 2. As ROOT, do an update to be sure you are current with patches. yum -y update yum will check your system packages, for patches and dependancies, download the needed files, then run a test transaction to be sure it can succeed. Then it will do the installation. Running this on a regular basis will keep you up to date for any patches for vulnerabilities that have been found and corrected. To install Gimp run yum -y install gimp I hope this helps. John Dietsch ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
rob wrote: Rember you need all the -dev rpms if you want to compile stuff. It would be a much much beter idea for you to install the rpm. Ditching suse for debian would also be a good idea. I too had literally the worst experience thus far in my Linux life trying to install GIMP 2.0 on a Fedora Core distro. Some blame may go to FC and some to the GIMP website. I do NOT know enough about installing software and administering Linux systems to accurately identify what made my experience so dreadful. However, let me point out that it just 'worked' on Windows. All I had to do was download the exe installer for GTK and GIMP, install A before B, and it was done. On Fedora, I tried installing RPM, but had failed dependencies that I could *not* find. I tried compiling and installing from source, but ran into an endless confusing set of problems related to version conflicts reported by the system (causing me to learn a lot about compiling linked libraries, and setting environment variables etc. that I don't have time to learn just to get a piece of graphic software installed.) I tried precompiled binaries, but again ran into problems with the system either missing some dependency, or some version conflict (I can't remember exactly). The point is this.it doesn't matter *why* it is difficult, it matters that it *is* difficult. The result is that people will not use the GIMP unless they are on Windows, or they are/have access to a Linux guru to install it. My case is partly unique because as a Free Software advocate and developer, I *want* to learn all the internals regarding system administration and compiling, so I'll sweat through all the details and the frustrations until it works. I am also extremely motivated to get the GIMP installed on Linux, because I use Linux full-time at work, and only use Windows on rare occasions at home, plus I do image manipulation both professionally and for fun. Lastly, I committed to give presentations on the GIMP to LUGs, so I had better get my system setup. With all these motivations (and help from the community), I got GIMP working. I had the liberty of switching distributions, because I just bought a new disk that I could migrate to, and I *wanted* to switch distros from RedHat (FC1) to Debian for a lot of reasons which are beyond the scope of this message. The point here is that mine is a very unique case. 99% of people will not, and should not be encouraged to, switch distributions just to get a single application installed. That said, I have to report complete satisfaction with installing GIMP 2 on Debian (Sarge). I followed a simple 3 or 4 step procedure (found from a link on Gimp.org) and it was done. It worked as good as the install process for Windows. My hope is that the 'tricks' to installing on these notoriously difficult distributions can be added to GIMP.org. For example: Compiling from source is not recommended unless you know about X, Y, and Z. To learn more about X, Y, and Z, go here. You need -dev RPMs for all your tools and libraries. You can get those off your distro CDs if you have Source RPMs, or you can download them here Here is a walkthrough and some good diagnostic commands that will help you determine how your current system is setup (assuming you've got a working distro but are not a uber-geek and so don't know these magic incantations.) Here is a step-by-step decision tree to get GIMP installed depending on the answers to these diagnostic tools. The outcomes I'm after are: a) more happy users of the GIMP b) less drag on the community answering questions related to 'ordinary' installs -- FREePHILE We are 'Open' for Business Free and Open Source Software http://www.freephile.com (978) 270-2425 I was playing poker the other night... with Tarot cards. I got a full house and 4 people died. -- Steven Wright ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Hi, Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My hope is that the 'tricks' to installing on these notoriously difficult distributions can be added to GIMP.org. For example: Compiling from source is not recommended unless you know about X, Y, and Z. To learn more about X, Y, and Z, go here. You need -dev RPMs for all your tools and libraries. You can get those off your distro CDs if you have Source RPMs, or you can download them here.. Nothing of this is GIMP specific. All just basic problems common to whatever software you compile. Why should this info be duplicated yet another time on the gimp.org web-site? Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My hope is that the 'tricks' to installing on these notoriously difficult distributions can be added to GIMP.org. For example: Compiling from source is not recommended unless you know about X, Y, and Z. To learn more about X, Y, and Z, go here. You need -dev RPMs for all your tools and libraries. You can get those off your distro CDs if you have Source RPMs, or you can download them here.. Sven Neumann wrote: Nothing of this is GIMP specific. All just basic problems common to whatever software you compile. Why should this info be duplicated yet another time on the gimp.org web-site? I don't know. I guess I don't know where to find this info so if there is somewhere else on the net (e.g. tldp.org) where I can quickly learn the essentials that I'm going to need but are beyond the scope of the gimp.org download page, then it would be good to have a link to that reference source. For example, there is a 10-part HOWTO at tldp.org on compiling Apache from source (http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Apache-Compile-HOWTO/index.html) Gimp.org tells me that compiling from source is not so hard as long as you have met these dependencieswhen I did download and install the dependencies, I found that there was a specific order for installing these (not addressed on gimp.org), and that there were also some dependencies of the dependencies that were not listed on gimp.org. The install for Windows XP, and Debian (Sarge) are frictionless. With other platforms or distros, you're potentially going to run into blockers. These are issues that GIMP developers/testers/volunteers might want to address in a) an install script (if that is even possible) or b) an install guide. I expect the more 'polished' software to have installers that take care of the complexities. OpenOffice.org does a good job of hiding the complexities, and Mozilla has been more recently successful in this area as well. I think GIMP, and GTK are essential parts of the Free Software desktop, so I hope that any ordinary user can take advantage of them. All I am reporting is that it can be difficult to install GIMP. If I were capable of making it easier to install, I would. ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Le 07.06.2004 22:49:39, Robert Krueger a écrit : Michael Schumacher wrote: Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:30:09PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: I have the feeling that if I just eliminate the files for glib 2.3.6 or the text that pkg-config found, that it would configure without complaint. I don't know how to find and eliminate this text or files, though. well, that is the thing about linux. you are still trying to work with the distribution. distributions break. Doesn't Suse have a tool used for package management (yast2, iirc)? Maybe removing and/or upgrading glib with this toll can help? HTH, Michael Already did that. That's why I have 2.2.3 on the system. Robert I suppose you have a -dev package related to glib, something like libglib-dev_something, do you have it installed with the same version as the glib package itself ? -- regards - Jean-Luc pgprMVVNBMcDv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Thong Nguyen wrote: On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Robert Krueger wrote: checking for pkg-config... /usr/local/bin/pkg-config checking for GLIB - version = 2.2.0... *** 'pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.3, but GLIB (2.3.6) *** was found! If pkg-config was correct, then it is best *** to remove the old version of GLib. You may also be able to fix the error *** by modifying your LD_LIBRARY_PATH enviroment variable, or by editing *** /etc/ld.so.conf. Make sure you have run ldconfig if that is *** required on your system. *** If pkg-config was wrong, set the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH *** to point to the correct configuration files It seems to me that pkg-config returns one version and the linker finds another version, in this case pkg-config returns 2.2.3 and the linker finds 2.3.6. I would try to update the list of files the linker uses to find libraries to link by doing ldconfig as root. If that doesn't work then try editing /etc/ld.so.conf, or where ever that file is if you system uses this this and rearrange the paths for the libraries to list the version returned by pkg-config first. If you don't want to all that above, just set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the directory where your 2.2.3 glib is and that should fix this problem. Of course, I've read that this method is not a good thing to do because it does something bad but I don't remember what. Hope that helps Thong OK, let's see if I miss anybody here. Thong - did all that...including LD_LIBRARY_PATH Et All - Wanky??At any rate, everything was checked at compile time of gimp. I went down the list posted on the site of dependencies, and if I didn't have that version on my 9.0 system, I built it from source. If anything complained that it needed something newer, it was added.Eventually, everything compiled correctly as source. The error I stated in the beginning was the only one left to solve, which I have brought to this forum. Tim and others - The location of the only existing glib-2.0.pc files on my system are located in /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig, and /opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig, of which both are listed in PKG_CONFIG_PATH, so this is not the issue, it appears. I cannot locate any other file that ends with .pc and starts with glib. I cannot locate the particular file or text that seems to be confusing pkgconfig into thinking that 2.3.6 is still on the system. It was installed in the early stages of trying to solve this problem, but has since been removed. Glibc on my system is 2.3.3, which is stock for 9.1, and in compliance with gimp 2.01 requirements. As there is no other glib*.pc file on my system, the information concerning 2.3.6 is obviously coming from somewhere else, and locating this source seems to me to be the most important direction for me to take, if I had a clue as to where to look. Barring some new direction from you folks, I will start again from scratch, checking currently installed versions, adding what's missing, rechecking to see if they registered, and so on.But until proven otherwise, I firmly believe that locating the source of the information that is returning 2.3.6 to the configure script of gimp is the next step towards solving this problem. I really appreciate all of your input, truly, you have all tried to help me sort this out. I'm not giving up yet, but when I do, I'll probably fork out another $80.00 to upgrade to 9.1.As an aside, every Linux system has it's loyal followers, and I am no exception. I've installed 3-4 versions each of RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse over the last 4 years, and have had the best experience with SuSe, no doubt partly due to the advances of the system in general, but also due to system characteristics that make my life easier for the many tasks I do. At this stage of the Linux evolutionary ladder, the three I've mentioned and Debian as well are all good, solid systems. Thanks, Robert ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Hi, Robert Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I cannot locate the particular file or text that seems to be confusing pkgconfig into thinking that 2.3.6 is still on the system. It was installed in the early stages of trying to solve this problem, but has since been removed. Glibc on my system is 2.3.3, which is stock for 9.1, and in compliance with gimp 2.01 requirements. As there is no other glib*.pc file on my system, the information concerning 2.3.6 is obviously coming from somewhere else, and locating this source seems to me to be the most important direction for me to take, if I had a clue as to where to look. The answer has been given to you already. Let me quote it again: Thong Nguyen wrote: It seems to me that pkg-config returns one version and the linker finds another version, in this case pkg-config returns 2.2.3 and the linker finds 2.3.6. I would try to update the list of files the linker uses to find libraries to link by doing ldconfig as root. If that doesn't work then try editing /etc/ld.so.conf, or where ever that file is if you system uses this this and rearrange the paths for the libraries to list the version returned by pkg-config first. You have traces of an glib-2.3.6 development version in your system path which causes the compiler and linker to find a different version than what pkg-config reports. Details that might help to locate these files can be found in the file config.log. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:53:44PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: Hi, I am having a terrible time getting 2.01 to run in my Suse 9.0 system.I do have 1.2 working ok, but I have read everything I can on this, and spent 3 weeks on and off trying to get it to configure.I feel especially bad because we downloaded the 2.01 Windows version onto my wifes new Dell laptop with the XP system, and it's running peachy, no problems.The main problem centers around pkg-config.Here's the error. pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.3 but GLIB ( 2.3.6 ) was found! i had similar problems with debian. i did not type pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' but figured it out some other way (i read spew too much). the way i solved it on debian was to build a cvs version of glib in /usr/local and add it to the path when i built my own deb of gtk2. the developers lied to me or have something else going on when they told me that debian gave them a working version. too much script-fu in their background, i think. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:53:44PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: Hi, I am having a terrible time getting 2.01 to run in my Suse 9.0 system.I do have 1.2 working ok, but I have read everything I can on this, and spent 3 weeks on and off trying to get it to configure.I feel especially bad because we downloaded the 2.01 Windows version onto my wifes new Dell laptop with the XP system, and it's running peachy, no problems.The main problem centers around pkg-config.Here's the error. pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.3 but GLIB ( 2.3.6 ) was found! i had similar problems with debian. i did not type pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' but figured it out some other way (i read spew too much). the way i solved it on debian was to build a cvs version of glib in /usr/local and add it to the path when i built my own deb of gtk2. the developers lied to me or have something else going on when they told me that debian gave them a working version. too much script-fu in their background, i think. carol I have the feeling that if I just eliminate the files for glib 2.3.6 or the text that pkg-config found, that it would configure without complaint. I don't know how to find and eliminate this text or files, though. Robert ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:30:09PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:53:44PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.3 but GLIB ( 2.3.6 ) was found! i had similar problems with debian. i did not type pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' but figured it out some other way (i read spew too much). the way i solved it on debian was to build a cvs version of glib in /usr/local and add it to the path when i built my own deb of gtk2. the developers lied to me or have something else going on when they told me that debian gave them a working version. too much script-fu in their background, i think. I have the feeling that if I just eliminate the files for glib 2.3.6 or the text that pkg-config found, that it would configure without complaint. I don't know how to find and eliminate this text or files, though. well, that is the thing about linux. you are still trying to work with the distribution. distributions break. glib doesn't really do that much. or glib does a lot but very simply. it is the bottom package. it is actually nothing but a gnu wrapper around libc. so the changes there are not really important. unless something really big happened to libc. libc has worked well forever. i used it with the algol wrapper so long ago. take advantage of the linux origins of the software. building your own glib is very easy. it does not even need a lot of disc space. i can make no promises that suse has provided a means to build a gtk2 easily, debian did for me. building my gtk2 deb needed to only see the configuration file that my personal build of glib put there and thankfully the rest just took build time. now my job is to keep them from installing their broken deb again until they fix it. are you absolutely married to suse for a distribution? carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Hello, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: take advantage of the linux origins of the software. building your ownglib is very easy. it does not even need a lot of disc space. Easy to build glibc, but much easier to hose your whole system(everything) if glibc isn't built right. Also, expect to need about 1/2 GB of disc space to build. m2c Steve ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Robert Krueger wrote: On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:53:44PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: Hi, I am having a terrible time getting 2.01 to run in my Suse 9.0 system.I do have 1.2 working ok, but I have read everything I can on this, and spent 3 weeks on and off trying to get it to configure.I feel especially bad because we downloaded the 2.01 Windows version onto my wifes new Dell laptop with the XP system, and it's running peachy, no problems.The main problem centers around pkg-config.Here's the error. pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.3 but GLIB ( 2.3.6 ) was found! As an additional note, here is the complete message: checking for pkg-config... /usr/local/bin/pkg-config checking for GLIB - version = 2.2.0... *** 'pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.3, but GLIB (2.3.6) *** was found! If pkg-config was correct, then it is best *** to remove the old version of GLib. You may also be able to fix the error *** by modifying your LD_LIBRARY_PATH enviroment variable, or by editing *** /etc/ld.so.conf. Make sure you have run ldconfig if that is *** required on your system. *** If pkg-config was wrong, set the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH *** to point to the correct configuration files no Sure would like some help... Thanks, Robert ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Steve M Bibayoff wrote: Hello, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: take advantage of the linux origins of the software. building your ownglib is very easy. it does not even need a lot of disc space. Easy to build glibc, but much easier to hose your whole system(everything) if glibc isn't built right. Also, expect to need about 1/2 GB of disc space to build. glib != glibc HTH, Michael -- The GIMP http://www.gimp.org| IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp Sodipodi http://sodipodi.sf.net | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/sodipodi ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Hello, Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: glib != glibc slaps palm to forhead. Sorry about adding noise, wasn't following thread to closely. Steve ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Michael Schumacher wrote: Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:30:09PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: I have the feeling that if I just eliminate the files for glib 2.3.6 or the text that pkg-config found, that it would configure without complaint. I don't know how to find and eliminate this text or files, though. well, that is the thing about linux. you are still trying to work with the distribution. distributions break. Doesn't Suse have a tool used for package management (yast2, iirc)? Maybe removing and/or upgrading glib with this toll can help? HTH, Michael Already did that. That's why I have 2.2.3 on the system. Robert ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Michael Schumacher wrote: Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:30:09PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: I have the feeling that if I just eliminate the files for glib 2.3.6 or the text that pkg-config found, that it would configure without complaint. I don't know how to find and eliminate this text or files, though. well, that is the thing about linux. you are still trying to work with the distribution. distributions break. Doesn't Suse have a tool used for package management (yast2, iirc)? Maybe removing and/or upgrading glib with this toll can help? HTH, Michael What I need is for someone to work with me to find out how to eliminate all traces of 2.3.6 so pkg-config doesn't see two versions.That's my first best-step in eliminating this problem. Robert ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Hello, Forwarring, I haven't used Suse in a very long time, and I rarely use pkg-config, so I may be leading you down a wrong road. Robert Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I need is for someone to work with me to find out how to eliminate all traces of 2.3.6 so pkg-config doesn't see two versions. pkg-config stores looks for info in *.pc files . See if they are any in your gimp*/lib/ or any where on your system. Also, what does: $ echo $PKG_CONFIG_PATH give you? Steve ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Hi, Robert Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: system.I do have 1.2 working ok, but I have read everything I can on this, and spent 3 weeks on and off trying to get it to configure. Please go to http://gimp.org/unix/ and use the RPMS linked from there. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
Steve M Bibayoff wrote: snip Also, what does: $ echo $PKG_CONFIG_PATH give you? Steve I apologize for the deletion. Here's what I get: /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig:/usr/lib/pkgconfig:/opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig Even though there are multiple locations for the directory /pkgconfig, there is only one glib-2.0.pc file, in fact, there is no other *.pc file that begins with glib. Thanks Robert ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:12:36PM -0400, Robert Krueger wrote: Carol Spears wrote: are you absolutely married to suse for a distribution? No offense, Carol, but this thread isn't solving my problem. And I already did build glib from source...several times. I'm not changing distributions because a piece of software doesn't work, you must be kidding... If you have a workable solution to get get Gimp 2.0.1 working on my system, I would be happy to continue this discussion. you could have just said yes, you are married the suse distribution. good luck! carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Terrible time to get 2.01 running
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Robert Krueger wrote: checking for pkg-config... /usr/local/bin/pkg-config checking for GLIB - version = 2.2.0... *** 'pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.3, but GLIB (2.3.6) *** was found! If pkg-config was correct, then it is best *** to remove the old version of GLib. You may also be able to fix the error *** by modifying your LD_LIBRARY_PATH enviroment variable, or by editing *** /etc/ld.so.conf. Make sure you have run ldconfig if that is *** required on your system. *** If pkg-config was wrong, set the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH *** to point to the correct configuration files It seems to me that pkg-config returns one version and the linker finds another version, in this case pkg-config returns 2.2.3 and the linker finds 2.3.6. I would try to update the list of files the linker uses to find libraries to link by doing ldconfig as root. If that doesn't work then try editing /etc/ld.so.conf, or where ever that file is if you system uses this this and rearrange the paths for the libraries to list the version returned by pkg-config first. If you don't want to all that above, just set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the directory where your 2.2.3 glib is and that should fix this problem. Of course, I've read that this method is not a good thing to do because it does something bad but I don't remember what. Hope that helps Thong ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
