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 dependencies....when 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 that the gimp developers do not like the way your distribution installs things. there are some basic rules that gnu software needs to adhere to in the building parts. you can find these rules in the make manpage. if your distribution does not play well with this, who is responsible? > 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. > reporting the actual problems and being open to reasonable fixes is one approach. bitching about things that the gimp developers did not do is another. to each his own approach. if everything follows the gnu make rules, everything should work. can you show where the gimp fails these rules in the installation process? carol _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
