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

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

Hello,

Carol Spears 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

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

Steve M Bibayoff wrote:

Hello,

Carol Spears 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

Hello,

Michael Schumacher wrote:

glib != glibc

slaps palm to forhead.

Sorry about adding noise, wasn't following thread to closely.

Steve

You should be looking for a file named glib-2.0.pc, and it is probably located in a directory called pkgconfig. In Fedora the default is /usr/lib/pkgconfig but I believe it is different in SuSE. If pkg-config data files are located elsewhere than in the default directory, then the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH gives a list of the possible locations.

Hope this helps, -- Bill

______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu

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 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

* Robert Krueger [06-07-04 14:51]:

I am having a terrible time getting 2.01 to run in my Suse 9.0 system.

You will find SuSE 9.0 rpms for gimp 2.01 @: http://www.usr-local-bin/org

Hi,

Robert Krueger 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

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

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

On Monday 07 June 2004 06:58 pm, Robert Krueger wrote: [...]

Steve and Bill,
I found the file you noted in /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig. It's the only location on my system that has this particular file, although I do have other *.pc files in another location /opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig. So, if I understand this correctly, if I eliminate the glib-2.0.pc from /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig, and then do another "make install" from glib 2.2.3, it should recreate that file again in that directory, correct? Now I'm just guessing, but there must be an alternate file with 2.3.6 version somewhere, else how is it getting that information? BTW, here's the result from /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig/glib-2.0.pc:

[...]

The result of this file leads me to believe there is another source where pkgconfig is getting it's outdated info, i.e, glib 2.3.6.

Robert _______________________________________________

Robert,

I believe you mentioned that you are using SuSE 9.0 now? I don't remember what versions of glib & glib2 came with that now. I know a version 2.x, but don't remember the exact version without looking on my discs. Anyway, SuSE does have update files on their ftp to bring things up to 2.4 for glib2 at least. Since glib pertains to gtk and glib2 to the new gtk+, which I believe Gimp has also been updated to use, I'm pretty sure you won't find a 2.3 version of glib to use. Usually your odd versions are developer versions anyway. Be sure too, that you have all the -devel packages installed for compiling.

I don't know how much you have been mucking around with your setup, but it sounds as if you might have gotten things wanky. You could always do a repair from your SuSE discs, to put things back or you could update to 9.1 and get Gimp 2.x in the process. ;o)

You can also download the Gnome files from their ftp for 9.0 and probably settle things down too, if you are wanting to compile the newer version. One other thing, I believe in one of the mails, someone mentioned glibc. glibc is one of those things one should not mess with on their setup as it provides the base for all Linux. It is extremely fragile and updating or changing things are a bad idea. That's not to say one can't do it, but due to the nature of it's existence, it's recommended strongly not too!

Regards, Patrick

I'm not sure if this has already been suggested, but what worked for me is:

locate glib-2.0.pc export PKG_CONFIG_PATH="result"

i.e. export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=$(locate glib-2.0.pc) -----
Timothy Jedlicka, bonzo@lucent.com, 1-630-713-4436, AOL-IM=bonzowork Network Entomologist, Lucent Technologies, Testers For Hire

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:15:32PM -0400, BandiPat wrote:

On Monday 07 June 2004 06:58 pm, Robert Krueger wrote: [...]

[...]

I don't know how much you have been mucking around with your setup, but it sounds as if you might have gotten things wanky. You could always do a repair from your SuSE discs, to put things back or you could update to 9.1 and get Gimp 2.x in the process. ;o)

heh, wanky.

You can also download the Gnome files from their ftp for 9.0 and probably settle things down too, if you are wanting to compile the newer version. One other thing, I believe in one of the mails, someone mentioned glibc. glibc is one of those things one should not mess with on their setup as it provides the base for all Linux. It is extremely fragile and updating or changing things are a bad idea. That's not to say one can't do it, but due to the nature of it's existence, it's recommended strongly not too!

well, i think this is kde giving you problems.

if you are using the g* software, glib is hardly changing. i got bored with updating it from cvs.

i think that you are confusing glib with kde and glib working together on a display.

i also consider you a very valuable gimp resource as you got gimp to work with kde and continue to.

but glib has been "done" for a long time. the changes have been merely cosmetic. it is c, not wanky for a long time now.

carol

Why is package config in /usr/local/bin ? Are you installing the whole of gnome from source to try and get this to work? This will cause problems in the future as you won't be able to automatically upgrade.

Did you install glib from source or rpm? Removing the version glib that everything is using is most likly going to give you a world of pain. But 'make uninstall' from the directory you installed it from as root if it's source. And "rpm -e " if rpm (as root again).

If your installing libs from source you need to set up your computer to use them. As the error message says. Not sure exactly what would be needed on Suse. Most likly adding /usr/local/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf. Add setting PKG_CONFIG_PATH to /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig. Possibly other things too.

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.

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

Hi,

Robert Krueger 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

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

Hi,

Greg Rundlett 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

Greg Rundlett 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 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.

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.

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

Hi,

Greg Rundlett writes:

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 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.

Feel free to join the gimp-web mailing-list, check the web-site out of CVS and improve the online docs. Your help will be appreciated.

Sven

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 09:36:19PM -0400, Greg Rundlett wrote:

Greg Rundlett 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

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

John Dietsch wrote:

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.

Should I take it that installing the new GIMP on FC1 is not significantly easier than on rh 9 (shrike)?

I am fairly happily running shrike but am not really up for burning too many more days trying to get GIMP 2.x running on it. I was assuming that the availability of a GIMP 2.x RPM for FC1 meant that there would be a smooth install and was planning on making an FC1 partition on my HDD.

What are people's experiences re: GIMP 2.x and FC1? Is it the same nightmare of rebuilding gtk2? Or is it better than rh 9?

I hope this helps.

Thanks,

Barton

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Barton Bosch wrote:

Should I take it that installing the new GIMP on FC1 is not significantly easier than on rh 9 (shrike)?

It is the same.

What are people's experiences re: GIMP 2.x and FC1? Is it the same nightmare of rebuilding gtk2? Or is it better than rh 9?

I tried it.
There are 79 packages involed.
If you are not an expert do not try it. If you are running RH9 or FC1 you can upgrade to FC2. If you want the simple easy answer just upgrade to fc2. It comes with version 2.0 of gimp.
John

What are people's experiences re: GIMP 2.x and FC1? Is it the same nightmare of rebuilding gtk2? Or is it better than rh 9?

I tried it.
There are 79 packages involed.
If you are not an expert do not try it. If you are running RH9 or FC1 you can upgrade to FC2. If you want the simple easy answer just upgrade to fc2. It comes with version 2.0 of gimp.
John

Hi guys,

It's possible that i'm just a lucky person, but it was no nightmare installing GIMP 2.0.1 on FC1.

It complained about aalib, lcms and libexif, which i needed to install, but after that, i was able to upgrade with only rpm commands.

There were some dependency issues but nothing serious.

Kolos

On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 02:34:36PM +0200, Tatar Kolos wrote:

What are people's experiences re: GIMP 2.x and FC1? Is it the same nightmare of rebuilding gtk2? Or is it better than rh 9?

I tried it.
There are 79 packages involed.
If you are not an expert do not try it. If you are running RH9 or FC1 you can upgrade to FC2. If you want the simple easy answer just upgrade to fc2. It comes with version 2.0 of gimp.

i counted 5 packages to build gimp (from cvs), 4 required packages (pango, pkgconfig, libart2, gtk2), 8 third party libraries in the recommended list. some addition suggestions are made from running configure.

this equals 17 and this count needs more build tools than you would if you were making it from a tarball. 79 - 17 = 62. 62 additional packages are needed by pango, pkgconfig, libart2, gtk2 and fedora?

i know pango needs freetype2 and gtk needs atk and glib.

i think it is seriously time to check the reasons that fedora needs so much on your computer to work.

i really watched these guys try not to add dependencies like this.

is there a way for fedora to show this list of dependencies. i am in the mood to count things ....

Hi guys,

It's possible that i'm just a lucky person, but it was no nightmare installing GIMP 2.0.1 on FC1.

It complained about aalib, lcms and libexif, which i needed to install, but after that, i was able to upgrade with only rpm commands.

There were some dependency issues but nothing serious.

this application should be able to build without these libraries. i know that aalib is an option and the gimp should build fine without this.

do you have a working pygimp?

carol

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.

Maybe you want to try another distro. On my Debian box, I typed

apt-get install gimp

and it got installed. No problem there.

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

John Dietsch wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Barton Bosch wrote:

Should I take it that installing the new GIMP on FC1 is not significantly easier than on rh 9 (shrike)?

It is the same.

What are people's experiences re: GIMP 2.x and FC1? Is it the same nightmare of rebuilding gtk2? Or is it better than rh 9?

I tried it.
There are 79 packages involed.
If you are not an expert do not try it. If you are running RH9 or FC1 you can upgrade to FC2. If you want the simple easy answer just upgrade to fc2. It comes with version 2.0 of gimp.

I have only done a bit of checking into the newer distros, but isn't FC2 a 64 bit OS? That would make it incompatible with my PIII 550, correct?

On a related note, would that mean that when FC1 hits its EOL date (if it hasn't already) that there will be no more official updates or security fixes for redhat based x86 operating systems?

Ciao,

Barton

Barton Bosch wrote:

John Dietsch wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Barton Bosch wrote:

Should I take it that installing the new GIMP on FC1 is not significantly easier than on rh 9 (shrike)?

It is the same.

What are people's experiences re: GIMP 2.x and FC1? Is it the same nightmare of rebuilding gtk2? Or is it better than rh 9?

I tried it. There are 79 packages involed. If you are not an expert do not try it.
If you are running RH9 or FC1 you can upgrade to FC2. If you want the simple easy answer just upgrade to fc2. It comes with version 2.0 of gimp.

I have only done a bit of checking into the newer distros, but isn't FC2 a 64 bit OS? That would make it incompatible with my PIII 550, correct?

Don't start spreading FUD. From http://fedora.redhat.com

"Fedora Core 2 is now available from Red Hat and at distinguished mirror sites near you, and is also available in the torrent. Fedora Core has expanded in this release to four binary ISO images and four source ISO images, and is available for both x86-64 and i386." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On a related note, would that mean that when FC1 hits its EOL date (if it hasn't already) that there will be no more official updates or security fixes for redhat based x86 operating systems?

If there is an EOL for the Fedoras, it might be possible that no more updates for older versions will be available - I don't know, I neither did use nor do I plan to use Redhat or Fedora.

But your general statement about discontinuing support for "redhat based x86 operating systems" is wrong, as indicated by the release anouncement - it is even ambiguous, since the 64 bit version is for "x86-64" :)

HTH, Michael

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.

Michael Schumacher wrote:

I have only done a bit of checking into the newer distros, but isn't FC2 a 64 bit OS? That would make it incompatible with my PIII 550, correct?

Don't start spreading FUD. From http://fedora.redhat.com

Sorry, no FUD intended. The info I got:

CPU Requirements

This section lists the CPU specifications required by Fedora Core 2.

* AMD64 processors (both Athlon64 and Opteron) * Intel processors with Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology (Intel® EM64T)

was from: http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/

Not sure how the direct contradiction between the main FC2 page that you linked to and the release notes pages that a search for "fedora core system requirements" search took me to happened, but it is reassuring that FC2 is available for x86-64 and i386.

How is FC2 running for folks (especially with regard to GIMP 2.0.1)? Chances are that if I install FC2 I will just put it in a spare partition and keep rh 9 as my production os.

I briefly considered branching out to s Debian Sarge partition that would allow an 'apt-get install gimp', but my situation is further complicated by being on a 56k line. A kind windows user is downloading the isos of the new distro for me and I really don't see him installing Debian Jigdo to get the Sarge cd images

But your general statement about discontinuing support for "redhat based x86 operating systems" is wrong, as indicated by the release anouncement - it is even ambiguous, since the 64 bit version is for "x86-64" :)

Yeah ok, thanks for sorting that out.

Barton

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

On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 12:57:55PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:

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.

then maybe the packagers need to work more closely with the developers and gimp would be a good one since it really uses much of the computers resources.

distributions make some very crazy decisions.

i would encourage anyone who is using fedora to actually consider using debian since fedora is (the way i understand it) redhat, only free, not actually being worked on by redhat but by a community that is supposed to work like debian. which is only a distribution that is being worked on by a community. less jumps in logic to what should be the same end.

gentoo is another one that made some crazy decisions on how it works.

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.

distributions claim ease of installation. it is very easy to use the autotools and make tools to install gimp. this is the promise that the gimp developers make.

yum is a fedora idea and no one on the gimp developer team has anything to say about how yum works. i actually get the creeps even typing the word -- yum. who came up with that?

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.

use make and autoconf. GIMP stans for GNU Image Manipulation Program. this is the promise. use a distribution that promises gnu and gimp should be no problem to install.

i hope that gimp developers are interested in having gimp install easily with gnu tools. it always has installed easily with these tools and i suspect always will.

carol

Hi,

Steve Litt 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

Hi,

you probably meant to send that mail to the list, didn't you? I am moving it back on the list. Hope you don't mind....

Steve Litt writes:

I'm sorry. I didn't mean I was a *gimp* developer, just a free software developer: UMENU, VimOutliner, EMDL, and a few other projects. None of these come close to rising to the complexity and utility of Gimp, but in all cases a major priority was easy installation in a wide variety of situations. If a tool was hard to install, I didn't use that tool for development. In one case I had to create a "poor man's DOM" that was much easiler to install than Xerces-Perl. This might be considered "reinventing the wheel, but it made installation a whole lot easier.

The point is that we do take a lot of care of what dependencies to introduce or not to introduce and we have quite often refused to add new build dependencies because the benefit of using that tool or library didn't outweight the extra hassle for the user who has to install it.

Coming from other projects and trying to tell us what to do without even knowing how things are already handled can be perceived as quite an offense. It definitely shows that your comments are poorly researched.

This thread started when someone couldn't install Gimp on SuSe, which is mainstream and recent. Another anecdote in this thread featured Fedora Core, another mainstream, modern distro. I've read other anecdotes in other threads of people having extreme difficulty installing Gimp2.

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 nor is it a problem on Fedora Core 2. Basically all we depend on is a platform that has GTK+ >= 2.2. If that requirement is fulfilled, installation is straight-forward. There are several hundreds if not thousands of applications that depend on GTK+2. For this reason any recent distribution includes it. Whoever runs into problems to install GIMP2 on Linux should consider to update the Linux distribution or at least check if GTK2 (and perhaps even GIMP2) packages are available.

Sven

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)