Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:03:52PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > 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? carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
Hi, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > i was trying to restate the following quote from a previous email in > this thread: > > "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." > > restate it and suggest a quicker fix like a few others i have seen. > > this quote i pasted is not about a naming problem? No, it isn't, there is no naming problem. Everything including the "temporay condition" is completely intentional. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
well, On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:29:49PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > my memory now is that there were so many things (plug-ins) that would > > need name changes for the new previews and similar changes. > > Huh? I have no idea what you are refering to. > i was trying to restate the following quote from a previous email in this thread: "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." restate it and suggest a quicker fix like a few others i have seen. this quote i pasted is not about a naming problem? carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
Hi, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > my memory now is that there were so many things (plug-ins) that would > need name changes for the new previews and similar changes. Huh? I have no idea what you are refering to. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
memory kicks in ... On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:08:51PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > this is not the case with gimp-2.1 and that nice list. can someone > > remind me of the logic of this (i assume) temporary condition? the > > developers i came to respect went out of their way to avoid this. > > gimp-2.1, which is supposed to become gimp-2.2, will be compatible > with gimp-2.0 so there is no point in having the two versions > installed side-by-side. When gimp-2.2 is ready it will happily replace > gimp-2.0 and plug-ins compiled for gimp-2.0 will continue to work. > > 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. > thank you for the explanation. my memory now is that there were so many things (plug-ins) that would need name changes for the new previews and similar changes. if this memory is correct, is this a simple grep something and change it to something else operation? i am always on the look out for a cool use for something like that "removecruft" thing someone wrote way back when. is this one of those cases? perhaps not "removecruft" but "updatepreviewability" causing the temporary part of your explanation to be a wonderfully short case of temporary; i have seen some cool things throughout my watching gimp development for all these years and years carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
Hi, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > GIMP 1.2.x and 2.0.x will happily co-exist. > > > as will gimp-1.0 and gimp-1.1 and gimp-1.3 exist with gimp-1.2 and > gimp-2.0, if you are like me and have little things from all of them > that you want and a big enough hard drive and distribution that > actually works on your computer. > > this is not the case with gimp-2.1 and that nice list. can someone > remind me of the logic of this (i assume) temporary condition? the > developers i came to respect went out of their way to avoid this. gimp-2.1, which is supposed to become gimp-2.2, will be compatible with gimp-2.0 so there is no point in having the two versions installed side-by-side. When gimp-2.2 is ready it will happily replace gimp-2.0 and plug-ins compiled for gimp-2.0 will continue to work. 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. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
Actually, On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:41:55PM +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:03, Squareyes wrote: > > > 4. Do I need to remove any files relating to the version I am now using? > > I have read on this list that the 2 versions will co-exist. > > GIMP 1.2.x and 2.0.x will happily co-exist. > as will gimp-1.0 and gimp-1.1 and gimp-1.3 exist with gimp-1.2 and gimp-2.0, if you are like me and have little things from all of them that you want and a big enough hard drive and distribution that actually works on your computer. this is not the case with gimp-2.1 and that nice list. can someone remind me of the logic of this (i assume) temporary condition? the developers i came to respect went out of their way to avoid this. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
Hi, On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:03, Squareyes wrote: > 1. Am using Mandrake 9.1, and will use rpmdrake, will these Rpm's be > suitable for it? I think the RPMs provided by Xach is for Red Hat Linux 9 only. > 2. If they are suitable, is there any particular order I should install > them in? If I recall correctly you can just put all the RPMs in one directory and do "rpm -Uvh *.rpm". The installation order will then be determined by the internal dependencies. > 3. Do I need to install the Rpm's marked as devel. e.g. > atk-devel-1.6.0-1.i386.rpm ? You only need to install the -devel RPMs if you intend to compile anything against the installed libraries. > 4. Do I need to remove any files relating to the version I am now using? > I have read on this list that the 2 versions will co-exist. GIMP 1.2.x and 2.0.x will happily co-exist. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Install Gimp 2.0
Hello, Squareyes wrote: I have been watching the list talking about Gimp 2. and would like to try it. Good luck :) 1. Am using Mandrake 9.1, and will use rpmdrake, will these Rpm's be suitable for it? I'm not sure. 2. If they are suitable, is there any particular order I should install them in? I know when I was running an RPM based system, I used to try to install the last one first, get the list of dependencies, and install them in order until things worked. That's not an optimal solution :) The approximate order of installation should be glib atk fontconfig pango gtk gimp gimp-docs 3. Do I need to install the Rpm's marked as devel. e.g. atk-devel-1.6.0-1.i386.rpm ? Not unless you plan on compiling the GIMP from source. Nor do you need automake or autoconf, unless you plan to build from CVS. 4. Do I need to remove any files relating to the version I am now using? I have read on this list that the 2 versions will co-exist. You don't need to remove anything. It is possible that your packaging system won't like having 2 versions of the GIMP installed, but IIRC there is a way to force RPM to install a new copy alongside the old one, rather than have it replace it. Hope this helps, Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
