RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled

Install Gimp 2.0

This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

10 of 11 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

Install Gimp 2.0 Squareyes 17 May 18:03
  Install Gimp 2.0 Dave Neary 17 May 09:34
  Install Gimp 2.0 Henrik Brix Andersen 17 May 12:41
   Install Gimp 2.0 Carol Spears 17 May 18:40
    Install Gimp 2.0 Sven Neumann 17 May 21:08
     Install Gimp 2.0 Carol Spears 18 May 00:02
      Install Gimp 2.0 Sven Neumann 18 May 12:29
       Install Gimp 2.0 Carol Spears 18 May 17:05
        Install Gimp 2.0 Sven Neumann 18 May 19:22
87k6z98smf.fsf@gimp.org 07 Oct 20:16
  Install Gimp 2.0 Carol Spears 18 May 21:15
Dave Neary
2004-05-17 09:34:25 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

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.

Henrik Brix Andersen
2004-05-17 12:41:55 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

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

Squareyes
2004-05-17 18:03:23 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Install Gimp 2.0

Hi all,
I have been watching this list since early March this year and have to admit am getting more confused by the day. I have been using The Gimp to edit my digital photo's (version 1.2.3 which I am very impressed with, very logical to use) and have been watching the list talking about Gimp 2. and would like to try it.
I am afraid I have no hope of ever compiling it, so have downloaded a series of rpm's from Xach. I have a couple of questions. 1. Am using Mandrake 9.1, and will use rpmdrake, will these Rpm's be suitable for it?
2. If they are suitable, is there any particular order I should install them in?
3. Do I need to install the Rpm's marked as devel. e.g. atk-devel-1.6.0-1.i386.rpm ?
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.

Thanks for your patience, we beginners must be a trial to you all, am afraid my brain is getting too old to learn too many new tricks, but am still trying.
Take Care
Winton

The list of Rpm's I downloaded from Xach are listed below.

atk-1.6.0-1.i386.rpm (142.4) atk-devel-1.6.0-1.i386.rpm(86.1K)
autoconf-2.59-3.noarch.rpm (627.6K)
automake-1.8.3-1.noarch.rpm (477.3K) fontconfig-2.2.1-8.1.i386.rpm (113.0K) fontconfig-devel-2.2.1-8.1.i386.rpm (231.4K) gimp-2.0.0-1.i386.rpm (9.2M)
gimp-devel-2.0.0-1.i386.rpm (66.1K) gimp-docs-2.0.0-1.i386.rpm (442.7K)
glib2-2.4.0-1.i386.rpm (465.1K)
glib2-devel-2.4.0-1.i386.rpm (875.8K) gtk2-2.4.0-1.i386.rpm (4.0M)
gtk2-devel-2.4.0-1.i386.rpm (1.9M)
pango-1.4.0-1.i386.rpm (263.7K)
pango-devel-1.4.0-1.i386.rpm (156.5)

Carol Spears
2004-05-17 18:40:17 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

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

Sven Neumann
2004-05-17 21:08:51 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Install Gimp 2.0

Hi,

Carol Spears 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

Carol Spears
2004-05-18 00:02:39 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Install Gimp 2.0

memory kicks in ...
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:08:51PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Carol Spears 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

Sven Neumann
2004-05-18 12:29:49 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Install Gimp 2.0

Hi,

Carol Spears 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

Carol Spears
2004-05-18 17:05:15 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Install Gimp 2.0

well,
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:29:49PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Carol Spears 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

Sven Neumann
2004-05-18 19:22:28 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Install Gimp 2.0

Hi,

Carol Spears 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

Carol Spears
2004-05-18 21:15:13 UTC (almost 20 years ago)

Install Gimp 2.0

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:03:52PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Carol Spears 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