Seems I cheered too soon... only the gimp-devel-2.8.0 packages are there...
perhaps the binaries are coming soon...
>Just a note here, there are rpm packages fo gimp 2.8 for Centos 6.2 and
>6.3 according to rpmfind.net.
>It's probably also fine to build in /usr/local, it is on most rpm-based
>sy
On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 04:14 +0200, erroneus wrote:
> >You need to build things in the selected build directory, babl, gegl
> >and gimp
>
> >If glib and gtk versions are too low, you need to build those and
> >their dependancies in the selected directory.
>
> >DO NOT BUILD IN /usr or /usr/local
J
>You need the development packages, those two:
>libpoppler-dev
>libpoppler-glib-dev
>'libpoppler-dev' is a dependency of 'libpoppler-glib-dev' so you need
>both of them, I imagine your distro separates the devel packages from
>the standard libraries hence the *-dev in the names.
Yeah, in my distr
On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 04:14 +0200, erroneus wrote:
> >You need to build things in the selected build directory, babl, gegl
> >and gimp
>
> >If glib and gtk versions are too low, you need to build those and
> >their dependancies in the selected directory.
>
> >DO NOT BUILD IN /usr or /usr/local
J
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 12:56 +0200, erroneus wrote:
> I also have poppler-glib 0.12.4 which comes with my distro. However,
> the compiler doesn't see it. It's not the show-stopper that the SVG
> support was.
You need the development packages, those two:
libpoppler-dev
libpoppler-glib-dev
'libpopp
>On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 19:07 +0200, erroneus wrote:
>> It is also of interesting note that I have also attempted to resolve the
>> poppler library lack without success. I just don't know what is missing
>> from all of this.
>>
>>
>As of poppler, GIMP requires 'poppler-glib >= 0.12.4'
>I use
On 07/15/2012 06:40 PM, Owen wrote:
Does CentOS use yum? What does # yum search canberra or # yum search
clearlooks output?
Matched:
canberra =
libcanberra-gtk2.i686 : Gtk+ Bindin
>>The previous two threads didn't go to the list, clicked 'Reply'
>> instead
>>'Reply to All' so they went directly to your mail, my mistake... :P
>
>>Try configuring 'librsvg' without 'gobject-introspection':
>>./configure --prefix=/opt/gimp-2.8/ --enable-introspection=no
>
>>And yes, I tried com
>The previous two threads didn't go to the list, clicked 'Reply' instead
>'Reply to All' so they went directly to your mail, my mistake... :P
>Try configuring 'librsvg' without 'gobject-introspection':
>./configure --prefix=/opt/gimp-2.8/ --enable-introspection=no
>And yes, I tried compiling 'gob
On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 21:38 +0200, erroneus wrote:
> >I used 'librsvg-2.36.1.tar.xz' when compiling 2.8 and everything went
> >fine...
> >Give it a try to that version of librsvg, remember setting:
> >export PATH=$PATH:/opt/gimp-2.8/bin
> >export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/gimp-2.8/lib
> >export PKG_CONF
>I used 'librsvg-2.36.1.tar.xz' when compiling 2.8 and everything went
>fine...
>Give it a try to that version of librsvg, remember setting:
>export PATH=$PATH:/opt/gimp-2.8/bin
>export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/gimp-2.8/lib
>export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/gimp-2.8/lib/pkgconfig
>and:
>configure --prefix=
>That's why you should opt for a general usage distro. Fedora, SUSE,
>Ubuntu, and probably the best IMHO, is Mint.
>If you want to play with Centos and other boutique distros, be
>prepared to do the hard yards.
CentOS/RHEL is not a boutique distro any more than Debian is. I have been a
Fedora
>>You need to build things in the selected build directory, babl, gegl
>>and gimp
>
>>If glib and gtk versions are too low, you need to build those and
>>their dependancies in the selected directory.
>
>>DO NOT BUILD IN /usr or /usr/local
>
>>Make sure that the console you are working is the conso
>You need to build things in the selected build directory, babl, gegl
>and gimp
>If glib and gtk versions are too low, you need to build those and
>their dependancies in the selected directory.
>DO NOT BUILD IN /usr or /usr/local
>Make sure that the console you are working is the console that yo
>>http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu
>
> Just so you know... I just removed the BABL and GEGL libraries from my
> system and attempted to build exactly as the instructions say I
> should... well, it says:
>
> checking for GLIB - version >= 2.28.0... no
> *** Could not run
>http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu
Just so you know... I just removed the BABL and GEGL libraries from my system
and attempted to build exactly as the instructions say I should... well, it
says:
checking for GLIB - version >= 2.28.0... no
*** Could not run GLIB test p
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM, erroneus wrote:
>>I suggest you read these instructions (ignore the ubuntu bias);
>
>>http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu
>
>>If that's a whole new world, you will find it an interesting learning
>>curve
>
> It's not a "whole new" world, bu
>I suggest you read these instructions (ignore the ubuntu bias);
>http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu
>If that's a whole new world, you will find it an interesting learning
>curve
It's not a "whole new" world, but it's not something I've done in a long while.
I would l
>>On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, erroneus wrote:
> I want to be able to run my older version of GNOME with a newer
> version of GiMP. How can I resolve this? If the answer is compiling
> from source, can I get some hints as to what whole sets of source I
> need to get and how to go about inst
>On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, erroneus wrote:
>> But it has revealed what I believe are philisophical flaws in GiMP and/or
>> GNOME which I think should be resolved.
>You may see it as a philosophical flow, but I see it as just another
>example of duality.
>> How do I get this shared with d
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:39 PM, erroneus wrote:
> But it has revealed what I believe are philisophical flaws in GiMP and/or
> GNOME which I think should be resolved.
You mean that GIMP developers sometimes bump dependencies? We don't do
it, because we like annoying people. We do it, because ups
>On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:02 AM, erroneus wrote:
>> Why would developers choose to shut us out like this?
>We don't do any Linux packaging. We encourage you to become the first
>team member who does it.
>Alexandre Prokoudine
>http://libregraphicsworld.org
I got pretty close last night. Seems
Hello gerard82,
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:59:22 +0200
gerard82 wrote:
> >> This is no way to build an application! Applications and OSes should
> >> never be tied so closely together.
> >>
> >> I like GiMP 2.8 for Windows a lot and would prefer to run it under CentOS
> >> as that is my main d
>Hello erroneus,
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:02:29 +0200
>erroneus wrote:
>> I've been looking all over but there are just no CentOS (or RHEL for that
>> matter) packages for the latest version of GiMP. Compiling from source
>> doesn't even seem to be a good option either as it looks as if it wil
Hello erroneus,
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:02:29 +0200
erroneus wrote:
> I've been looking all over but there are just no CentOS (or RHEL for that
> matter) packages for the latest version of GiMP. Compiling from source
> doesn't even seem to be a good option either as it looks as if it will brea
> I've been looking all over but there are just no CentOS (or RHEL for
> that matter) packages for the latest version of GiMP. Compiling from
> source doesn't even seem to be a good option either as it looks as if
> it will break the whole OS the way things are set up.
>
> This is no way to build
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:02 AM, erroneus wrote:
> Why would developers choose to shut us out like this?
We don't do any Linux packaging. We encourage you to become the first
team member who does it.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
_
I've been looking all over but there are just no CentOS (or RHEL for that
matter) packages for the latest version of GiMP. Compiling from source doesn't
even seem to be a good option either as it looks as if it will break the whole
OS the way things are set up.
This is no way to build an appli
28 matches
Mail list logo
