Hi,

"Myke C. Subs" writes:

I've just joined this list. This is my first post to it.

I have been a happy GIMPer since 2000 until this year.

After Red Hat ditched me 2 years ago, I switched to Mandrake 8.2 and didn't like it. So this year I switched to SuSE 9.2 Pro and I like it a *lot* - except for the fact that the GIMP "upgrade" which comes with my distribution no longer includes my two long-time, most-used features: "Filters->Render->Add Glow" and "Layers->Center Layer".

Where have these gone and how do I get them back? Especially "Add Glow"... I *require* that one!

install gimp-perl

Sven

is this the answer:

http://www.forumsforyou.com/p/comp.graphics.apps.gimp/Where_Is__Add_Glow__and__Center_Layer__in_Gimp_2.x__1954.html

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 12:00 -0600, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Hello All,

I've just joined this list. This is my first post to it.

I have been a happy GIMPer since 2000 until this year.

After Red Hat ditched me 2 years ago, I switched to Mandrake 8.2 and didn't like it. So this year I switched to SuSE 9.2 Pro and I like it a *lot* - except for the fact that the GIMP "upgrade" which comes with my distribution no longer includes my two long-time, most-used features: "Filters->Render->Add Glow" and "Layers->Center Layer".

Where have these gone and how do I get them back? Especially "Add Glow"... I *require* that one!

Thanks,

Myke

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:24:54PM -0600, Myke C. Subs wrote:

mickeydog wrote:

is this the answer:

http://www.forumsforyou.com/p/comp.graphics.apps.gimp/Where_Is__Add_Glow__and__Center_Layer__in_Gimp_2.x__1954.html

That is a thead I created elsewhere on the same subject before I joined this list. IIRC, the response involved uninstalling the SuSE RPM and compiling from source, etc. - but before I go about doing that, if it's just a simple matter of installing another RPM I'd rather do it that way - since SuSE is a package-based distribution. It makes future upgrades easier. Like today, I just upgraded from GIMP 2.2.8 to 2.2.9 almost without effort. I like that. :)

it is easy to build gimp-perl. get the tarball and open it.

type "perl Makefile.PL" soon after type "make"
when that is completed, as root type "make install"

almost too easy! those poor distributors have to build your packages to work on many more computer hardwares than just yours.

development on gimp-perl is sopratic. since everyone is using distributions now and has no idea how easy it is to install and even view the scripts that are delivered, the same people who were working on this years ago are still the same ones who work on it now.

so many people with needs now, thanks to binary installation and only so many people who understand how to share the stuff -- can you see how easy it is for the few who make it to get locked into an ideal and with the other people making it "easy to get and install" the world of people who want things grows and grows without the world of people who can make it growing at an equal rate.

it took so much time for you to figure out how to get things from suse. i wonder if you might possibly allow the same amount of time to see about getting the current tarball and seeing if it might actually take less time to install it yourself.

i understand that time is valuable. lets see where the value is going...

carol

* Myke C. Subs [12-06-05 16:40]:

Carol Spears wrote:

it is easy to build gimp-perl. get the tarball and open it.

type "perl Makefile.PL" soon after type "make"
when that is completed, as root type "make install"

...

As root:
---------
linux:/home/mykec/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0 # perl Makefile.PL

no, run the 'perl Makefile.PL' as {user} and run 'make' as {user}.

then run as root, checkinstall

checkinstall will run/convert "make install" into an rpm and update the rpm database for you.

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 03:39:11PM -0600, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

it is easy to build gimp-perl. get the tarball and open it.

type "perl Makefile.PL" soon after type "make"
when that is completed, as root type "make install"

I downloaded the tarball yesterday, opened it and attempted to install it. I am not green with regard to installing from source. I just don't prefer to do that with an RPM-based package like SuSE if it's not required.

mykec@linux:~> echo $PATH /usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/bin:/usr/games:/opt/gnome/bin:/opt/kde3/bin

mykec@linux:~> which gimp /opt/gnome/bin/gimp

As root:
---------
linux:/home/mykec/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0 # perl Makefile.PL checking for gimp-2.0... no

*** The gimptool-2.0 script installed by GIMP could not be found *** If GIMP was installed in PREFIX, make sure PREFIX/bin is in *** your path, or set the GIMPTOOL environment variable to the *** full path to gimptool-2.0.
configure: error: ** unable to find gimp, make sure it's in your path (version 1.3.15+ required!)

Can't find gimp? It's in it's default SuSE RPM location. Make sure it's in my path? Yep. It's in my path.

??????

it needs gimptool. on debian, this is provided by libgimp-dev. they split out the development packages so that (in theory) you can build your own or use theirs. the compiler needs to see gimptool for gimp and the files ending in .h and .la for other software -- maybe more....

sorry, i forgot that part in the instructions.

carol

On 12/6/05, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

it is easy to build gimp-perl. get the tarball and open it.

I downloaded the tarball yesterday, opened it and attempted to install it. I am not green with regard to installing from source. I just don't prefer to do that with an RPM-based package like SuSE if it's not required.

checking for gimptool-2.0... no
checking for GIMP - version >= 2.0.0... no *** The gimptool-2.0 script installed by GIMP could not be found *** If GIMP was installed in PREFIX, make sure PREFIX/bin is in *** your path, or set the GIMPTOOL environment variable to the *** full path to gimptool-2.0.
configure: error: ** unable to find gimp, make sure it's in your path (version 1.3.15+ required!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't find gimp? It's in it's default SuSE RPM location. Make sure it's in my path? Yep. It's in my path.

??????

This requires your gimp development packages... probably gimp-dev or libgimp-dev or whatever...

Debian (normal repositry, stable, testing, unstable) and Ubuntu (universe repositry which must be uncommented in /etc/apt/sources.list, warty, hoary, breezy, dapper) both have such packages, called "libgimp-perl". Check if there is a similarly named package for your distro. If not... well, *shrugs*.

Mind, if it's this much trouble, it may be more convienent to switch to a distribution that has GIMP-Perl packages readily available, or "borrow" their packaging system*.

Basically, the idea is that binary gimp packages (it's useful it you're trying to save space - IIRC there seems to have been a recent movement to split packages into as many depending-on-each-other subpackages as possible) are trimmed to avoid headers - those are sepearate. As for compiling modules and the like, the package (in both those distros) is called "libgimp2.0-dev". I imagine you have a should similiar package, with either that name or "libgimp2.0-devel", I suppose. (Haven't checked.) If not, you can also get all the development packages for all the libraries and build gimp itself from source.

If you have a nice package management system in your distro, you might be able to search through the list of packages as such and install them. Try terms like "gimp-perl" or even just "gimp" (you may need to repeat the search multiple times.

* This has many implications, and I haven't tried it myself. Apparently it's been known that this "solution" can have dependency issues because packages are spread over multiple packaging systems.

My apologies if my comments are unhelpful. Hopefully you will resolve your problem quickly.

--
~Mike
- Just the crazy copy cat.

On 12/6/05, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Myke C. Subs [12-06-05 16:40]:

Carol Spears wrote:

it is easy to build gimp-perl. get the tarball and open it.

type "perl Makefile.PL" soon after type "make"
when that is completed, as root type "make install"

...

As root:
---------
linux:/home/mykec/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0 # perl Makefile.PL

no, run the 'perl Makefile.PL' as {user} and run 'make' as {user}.

then run as root, checkinstall

checkinstall will run/convert "make install" into an rpm and update the rpm database for you.

Since he's already run "perl Makefile.PL" as root, he's probably messed the permissions here and there - in that case it'd be easiest to delete/clean and re-unpack it as a normal user to be able to do this, IIRC.

In any case, my understanding is to do the following: (prefixed with $: run as normal user, prefixed with #: run as root) $ tar -xvzf
$ cd
$ perl Makefile.PL
$ make
# make install

Now, an alternative to the last line is "$ su make install" as a regular user (you will be prompted for root's password and returned to a regular user upon command's completion, requires "su" to be installed) or "$ sudo make install" as a regular user (you will be prompted for your password and returned to a regular user upon command's completion, requires "sudo" to be installed and for you to be configured in /etc/sudoers (by editing with "visudo" as root) to be allowed to run the program as root). If you get the latter method (sudo) working, my understanding is that it is preferred to use that.

If you have the "checkinstall" program, you can replace "make install" in any of the above commands with

"checkinstall make install"

which can make a package for you and automatically install it. That said, you may need to know about the metadata in the so-called "regular" package that would be in your system if anything needs to depend on it so to avoid having two packages for the same stuff. (That said, it's probably not as bad as having a local source install and a package at the same time.)

--
~Mike
- Just the crazy copy cat.

it is should be easy to install gimp-perl. there are a lot of different ways to do it and a lot of different explanations of how other people personally do this with their own system. i learned this in 1998 and it still works without a lot of explanation from others.

1) make sure you have libgimp-dev installed from your distribution. it might also be called gimp-dev.

2) get the tarball and as a user inflate it and cd into that new directory.

3) as a user only (not as root) type "perl Makefile.PL". once that is completed and successful, type "make".

4) as root type "make install"

5) look at /etc/ldconfig and make sure that "/usr/local/lib/" is in the list of paths there, if it isn't, add it.

6) as root type "ldconfig". there will be a pause while that software looks at all of your libraries. once it is completed, start gimp and look for Xtns-->Render. if that submenu is there, gimp-perl is.

7) don't let anyone mess you up with too much information. including me.

carol

* Carol Spears [12-06-05 17:52]:

5) look at /etc/ldconfig and make sure that "/usr/local/lib/" is in the list of paths there, if it isn't, add it.

there is *no* /etc/ldconfig in the SUSE distros. There is an executable, /sbin/ldconfig.

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:56:57PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carol Spears [12-06-05 17:52]:

5) look at /etc/ldconfig and make sure that "/usr/local/lib/" is in the list of paths there, if it isn't, add it.

there is *no* /etc/ldconfig in the SUSE distros. There is an executable, /sbin/ldconfig.

heh, well. any clue the reason they did that?

carol

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Carol Spears wrote:

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:56:57PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carol Spears [12-06-05 17:52]:

5) look at /etc/ldconfig and make sure that "/usr/local/lib/" is in the list of paths there, if it isn't, add it.

there is *no* /etc/ldconfig in the SUSE distros. There is an executable, /sbin/ldconfig.

heh, well. any clue the reason they did that?

Same in Ubuntu, the man ldconfig reads in part

ldconfig should normally be run by the super-user as it may require write permission on some root owned directories and files. If you use -r option to change the root directory, you don't have to be super-user though as long as you have sufficient right to that directory tree.

So ldconfig as an executable is rightly placed in /sbin

However I think you are getting mixed up with /etc/ld.so.conf I don't have one, but ldconfig 'still works' There is a ld.so.cache

/sbin/ldconfig is a binary file, so can't quickly tell what it is reading

Owen

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:15:10PM +1100, Owen Cook wrote:

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Carol Spears wrote:

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:56:57PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carol Spears [12-06-05 17:52]:

5) look at /etc/ldconfig and make sure that "/usr/local/lib/" is in the list of paths there, if it isn't, add it.

there is *no* /etc/ldconfig in the SUSE distros. There is an executable, /sbin/ldconfig.

heh, well. any clue the reason they did that?

Same in Ubuntu, the man ldconfig reads in part

ldconfig should normally be run by the super-user as it may require write permission on some root owned directories and files. If you use -r option to change the root directory, you don't have to be super-user though as long as you have sufficient right to that directory tree.

So ldconfig as an executable is rightly placed in /sbin

However I think you are getting mixed up with /etc/ld.so.conf I don't have one, but ldconfig 'still works' There is a ld.so.cache

/sbin/ldconfig is a binary file, so can't quickly tell what it is reading

i am fairly consistent with this typo.

thanks for the help. i should write sentences maybe:

"ld.conf.so is the configuration file, ldconfig is the application that needs the configuration file."

honestly, when needed which is not very often, i know it is in /etc/ and starts with an l. the naming is such that i can figure it out from there.

thanks for the fix to what i wrote and you are welcome to the laugh i probably provided.

carol

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 01:22:51PM -0600, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

it is should be easy to install gimp-perl.

Most everything's easy once you know what to do and how to do it.

Learning what to do and how to do it is the hard part.

1) make sure you have libgimp-dev installed from your distribution. it might also be called gimp-dev.

"gimp-devel" was the only package which came up as uninstalled when I queried YaST for "gimp". So I installed it.

2) get the tarball and as a user inflate it and cd into that new directory.

Did that 3 days ago.

3) as a user only (not as root) type "perl Makefile.PL". once that is completed and successful, type "make".

Once that is completed and successful is the catch here.

I'm still getting the same problem I had before I installed "gimp-devel".

mykec@linux:~/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0> perl Makefile.PL checking for gimp-2.0... no
checking for gcc... cc
checking for C compiler default output... a.out checking whether the C compiler works... yes checking whether we are cross compiling... no checking for suffix of executables... checking for suffix of object files... o checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes checking whether cc accepts -g... yes checking for cc option to accept ANSI C... none needed checking for gimptool-2.0... /opt/gnome/bin/gimptool-2.0 checking for GIMP - version >= 2.0.0... no *** Could not run GIMP test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the
*** exact error that occured. This usually means GIMP was incorrectly installed
*** or that you have moved GIMP since it was installed. In the latter case, you
*** may want to edit the gimptool-2.0 script: /opt/gnome/bin/gimptool-2.0 configure: error: ** unable to find gimp, make sure it's in your path (version 1.3.15+ required!)

mykec@linux:~/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0> echo $PATH /usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/bin:/usr/games:/opt/gnome/bin:/opt/kde3/bin

mykec@linux:~/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0> which gimp /opt/gnome/bin/gimp

mykec@linux:~/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0> ls -l /opt/gnome/bin/gimp lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 2005-12-05 11:52 /opt/gnome/bin/gimp -> gimp-2.2

mykec@linux:~/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0> ls -l /opt/gnome/bin/gimp-2.2 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 12577997 2005-11-10 01:59 /opt/gnome/bin/gimp-2.2

thank you for sticking with it. i do not even know how to strip this email, i left it in tact.

try editing this script to use /opt/gnome instead of /usr/local : http://www.gimp.org/source/howtos/gimpenv

then type "source gimpenv" before "perl Makefile.PL"

btw, you seem to have a handle on some *nix things that i don't. i still fumble around when trying to use echo. it is one of the problems that happens when you get things working and they work so well for so long.

again, thank you for your persistence.

carol

On 12/7/05, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Aaron Luptak wrote:

look at config.log - it found gimptool this time, but had another error.

http://mykec.com/mykec/config.log

Looks like you're missing glib.h - on my SuSE system, it's at /opt/gnome/include/glib-2.0/glib.h . I'd guess it's in the glib2-devel package on SuSE.

P.S. You replied to me personally and not also to the list. Was that intentional?

Nope, as soon as I sent it, I said, 'Did I reply to all?'

-a

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 04:07:41PM -0600, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

thank you for sticking with it.

I *require* "Add Glow" in the work that I do with The GIMP. I have no choice but to stick with it. :)

try editing this script to use /opt/gnome instead of /usr/local : http://www.gimp.org/source/howtos/gimpenv

OK.

then type "source gimpenv" before "perl Makefile.PL"

OK.

That didn't really seem necessary. AFAICT, it simply added "/opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig" to my $PKG_CONFIG_PATH, "/opt/gnome/bin" to my $PATH, and "opt/gnome/lib" to my $LD_LIBRARY_PATH - all of which already contained those paths as you can see below.

btw, you seem to have a handle on some *nix things that i don't.

Really? Hmmm... That makes me feel good, I guess. :)

I still fumble around when trying to use echo.

I really only use it whenever I want to see the contents of my $PATH variable.

it is one of the problems that happens when you get things working and they work so well for so long.

again, thank you for your persistence.

You're welcome, I suppose. Thanks for yours as well.

Honestly, though, I don't feel, though, that I'm doing anything out of the ordinary whenever I run into this kind of trouble with something on my system.

BTW, nothing improved. :)

inspite of my couple of mistyped instructions, this should have worked. i am curious if you have gimptool installed now after installing the developer package from your distribution (was it suse?).

i am trying to save face here and read the man page for pkg-config. what does "pkg-config --modversion gimp-2.0" report?

carol

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mykec@linux:~/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0> source gimpenv ACLOCAL_FLAGS set to -I /opt/gnome/share/aclocal PKG_CONFIG_PATH set to /opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig:/opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig PATH set to
/opt/gnome/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/bin:/usr/games:/opt/gnome/bin:/opt/kde3/bin LD_LIBRARY_PATH set to /opt/gnome/lib:/opt/gnome/lib: You can now build GIMP in /opt/gnome.

mykec@linux:~/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0> perl Makefile.PL checking for gimp-2.0... no
checking for gcc... cc
checking for C compiler default output... a.out checking whether the C compiler works... yes checking whether we are cross compiling... no checking for suffix of executables... checking for suffix of object files... o checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes checking whether cc accepts -g... yes checking for cc option to accept ANSI C... none needed checking for gimptool-2.0... /opt/gnome/bin/gimptool-2.0 checking for GIMP - version >= 2.0.0... no *** Could not run GIMP test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the
*** exact error that occured. This usually means GIMP was incorrectly installed
*** or that you have moved GIMP since it was installed. In the latter case, you
*** may want to edit the gimptool-2.0 script: /opt/gnome/bin/gimptool-2.0 configure: error: ** unable to find gimp, make sure it's in your path (version 1.3.15+ required!)

Myke C. Subs wrote:

checking for gimp-2.0... no

checking for GIMP - version >= 2.0.0... no *** Could not run GIMP test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the
*** exact error that occured. This usually means GIMP was incorrectly installed
*** or that you have moved GIMP since it was installed. In the latter case, you

The problem lies in where you have gimp-2.x installed. That is what the error message is saying.

Q. Why can't it find the gimp? A. because it is looking in the wrong place

Q. Where is it looking? A. Where the enviroment variable is telling it to look.

Q. Where is that A. Unless you tell it otherwise, it is looking at /usr/lib/pkgconf

Q. Where is the gimp-2.0.pc file? A. most likely in /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig

Q. So what do I do? A. Tell it to look in the right place.

Q. How do I do that? A. set the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH to /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig/

Comment. This is normally done on the standard linux distros with export. I suggest you do

# export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib:/usr/lib # export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/local/lib/pkgconfig/:/usr/lib/pkgconfig/

However if you have built gimp in /opt or some othe strange place, put the correct path in

Owen

* Myke C. Subs [12-07-05 19:07]:

Q. Where is the gimp-2.0.pc file? A. most likely in /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig

Nope. It's in /opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig

You, at least, have one. I have a SUSE install almost strictly rpm which has gimp-2.2.8-9 and there is *no* gimp-2.0.pc.

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:05:04PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Myke C. Subs [12-07-05 19:07]:

Q. Where is the gimp-2.0.pc file? A. most likely in /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig

Nope. It's in /opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig

You, at least, have one. I have a SUSE install almost strictly rpm which has gimp-2.2.8-9 and there is *no* gimp-2.0.pc.

i am having problems with this because i have been using a different distribution, and once you figure out how they work together -- well, you can even see very very fine points where they don't.

to the very best of my understanding, although it is not written in stone or anything like that, the distributions will only install the stuff that runs on top of X in /usr and you get to install things in /opt or /usr/local or even some directory you invent and "mkdir myinvention" yourself. i have never used suse, so they might do things differently. perhaps they allow you to install their packages elsewhere. to be honest, i think they all started out as redhat.

the pc files are installed with the "-dev" packages. are you certain that you did not build your own or redirect the installation?

i am going to be really honest now. it is days and challenges like this that make me sorry we wrote about how to get and install gimp from cvs and not about how to get and install gimp from a tarball.

the linux i know and wish you were using should have no problems putting their packages where they should be and allowing you to find them with your build tools and use them to make your own software.

debian names their distributions more according to where they are in development. stable is so stable it is boring, testing is usually really stable it feels boring to use. sid grows mold before they update. experimental is still behind what i would like to see in some of the software i am using.

i have two questions now. i sit here and try to imagine what the problem is here. one question is 1)what are the different suse distributions and why did you choose that one and 2)did you redirect your gimp installation?

i wonder if suse was trying to hard to be different from the redhat it started life as that it now does not behave like a linux should.

it doesn't really need to be a my distribution is better than yours discussion, especially since i know that it can be really difficult to work with volunteers the way debian does and i can probably point to evidence where it is a difficult way to work before you can. i guess i would at this point like to understand suse and what your expectations are and the reason you are working with that particular version.

i do know its parent company let go a larger portion of its linux employees and kept a larger portion of its employees that keep its enemies software alive. as two users, we are totally allowed to guess at what this might do to users of this distribution. at least i think we can.

a few years ago, it was possible to say "type this" into any terminal and with the occasional exception of usually gentoo, it always worked.

i honestly started this thinking it would be installed and working sanely days ago.

carol

Myke C. Subs wrote:

Owen wrote:

The problem lies in where you have gimp-2.x installed. That is what the error message is saying.

I have gimp-2.x installed right where the SuSE 9.2 RPM said to put it.

fair enough, but where is that gimp-2.0 executable? /opt/gnome/bin/gimp-2.0 ???

Owen

* Carol Spears [12-07-05 20:50]:

i am having problems with this because i have been using a different distribution, and once you figure out how they work together -- well, you can even see very very fine points where they don't.

they are all the same only different.

to the very best of my understanding, although it is not written in stone or anything like that, the distributions will only install the stuff that runs on top of X in /usr and you get to install things in /opt or /usr/local or even some directory you invent and "mkdir myinvention" yourself. i have never used suse, so they might do things differently. perhaps they allow you to install their packages elsewhere. to be honest, i think they all started out as redhat.

no, SuSE is from Slackware as is Redhat.

the pc files are installed with the "-dev" packages. are you certain that you did not build your own or redirect the installation?

Installed from the distro dvd and updated in the same position.

i am going to be really honest now. it is days and challenges like this that make me sorry we wrote about how to get and install gimp from cvs and not about how to get and install gimp from a tarball.

tarballs upset the rpm way. If you are going to use rpm, you need to stick with rpm. tarballs do not update the rpm database and package dependencies don't match, file locations end up where the programmer designs rather that following the distro......

the linux i know and wish you were using should have no problems putting their packages where they should be and allowing you to find them with your build tools and use them to make your own software.

there was a drive that SUSE was party to, to create a base standard file system design to be followed, but I don't belive that everyone has bought into it.

debian names their distributions more according to where they are in development. stable is so stable it is boring, testing is usually really stable it feels boring to use. sid grows mold before they update. experimental is still behind what i would like to see in some of the software i am using.

SUSE is pretty much cutting edge.

i have two questions now. i sit here and try to imagine what the problem is here. one question is 1)what are the different suse distributions and why did you choose that one and 2)did you redirect your gimp installation?

1. I still am using 9.0, but have 10.0 on the disktop ready to install. I seem to drag my feet when I get something to work really well. SUSE has two main (not commercial) distros now, one with only open source freely downloadable and one iso which is sold and contains a few things like acroread...

2. I installed from the distro dvd and have updated apps in the same locations as the original install. (via rpm)

i wonder if suse was trying to hard to be different from the redhat it started life as that it now does not behave like a linux should.

not from Redhat, from Slackware. But they are not trying to show that they are different than Slackware. There is no longer any simularity other than they are both linux.

it doesn't really need to be a my distribution is better than yours discussion, especially since i know that it can be really difficult to work with volunteers the way debian does and i can probably point to evidence where it is a difficult way to work before you can. i guess i would at this point like to understand suse and what your expectations are and the reason you are working with that particular version.

I have used maybe 20 different distros over the years, starting with Slackware downloaded onto >20 floppy disks on a 1200 baud telephone modum. I guess I just feel SUSE fits the best. I also have a '99 Harley Wide Glide, but rode Yamaha rockets for many years.

i do know its parent company let go a larger portion of its linux employees and kept a larger portion of its employees that keep its enemies software alive. as two users, we are totally allowed to guess at what this might do to users of this distribution. at least i think we can.

I know that they cut people, but I beleve that the SUSE development team is mostly intact. The cuts were mostly in other areas.

a few years ago, it was possible to say "type this" into any terminal and with the occasional exception of usually gentoo, it always worked.

i honestly started this thinking it would be installed and working sanely days ago.

file system design......

If you would like a look at the rpm I updated gimp with, it's available at:
http://wahoo.no-ip.org/~pat/gimp_2.2.8-9_i586.rpm

the directory structure and requirements are within the rpm.

On 12/7/05, Myke C. Subs wrote:

mykec@linux:/opt/gnome/bin> ls -l gimptool* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2005-12-05 11:52 gimptool -> gimptool-2.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10660 2005-11-10 02:00 gimptool-2.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 2005-12-05 11:52 gimptool-2.2 -> gimptool-2.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------ mykec@linux:~/Downloads/TGZ/Gimp-2.0> perl Makefile.PL checking for gimp-2.0... no
checking for gcc... cc

[snip]

checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes

[snip]

checking for gimptool-2.0... /opt/gnome/bin/gimptool-2.0 checking for GIMP - version >= 2.0.0... no *** Could not run GIMP test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the

What is the output of "tail config.log"?

*** exact error that occured. This usually means GIMP was incorrectly installed
*** or that you have moved GIMP since it was installed. In the latter case, you
*** may want to edit the gimptool-2.0 script: /opt/gnome/bin/gimptool-2.0 configure: error: ** unable to find gimp, make sure it's in your path (version 1.3.15+ required!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am most concerned at this point about this line in particular from the above:

checking for GIMP - version >= 2.0.0... no

...because that's not true.

Perhaps I should uninstall and then reinstall my GIMP 2.2.9 RPM?

I don't think it has to do with your RPM. The checks for GIMP that the source makes assume certain conditions which usually are created when gimp is built from source.

I'm conserned about this line: *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log

What compiler are you using? Do you have the development headers for the libraries used to make gimp? (Installing gimp-devel should have brought them in, but...)

for the

Or what about rpm --updatedb?

Naw, I don't think the source would check your package manager if GIMP was installed.

Hum... what if you look for a package called "gimpperl" in YaST? If it's not there, maybe google for a SuSe RPM for "gimp-perl" (make sure it matches your OS exactly, since IIRC RPMs can be lethal if they don't match your distro name and version perfectly).

IIRC, In Ubuntu and Linux, there is a concept of multiple repositries (e.g. multiple software CDs and/or multiple repositries on the internet) - maybe YaST needs a similar thing added if gimp-perl is not already in your OS?

The only problem is, all references to gimp-perl for SuSE 9.2 that I can find refer to gimp-perl 1.2; Ubuntu is providing something that looks like a gimp-perl 2.0 so i'm naturally puzzled... *sigh*

-- ~Mike
- Just the crazy copy cat.

this email was great. you are competent and know what you are doing. however, you are also not the person with the problem here....

nice read though....

carol

* Carol Spears [12-08-05 02:56]:

however, you are also not the person with the problem here....

But I too have the problem with gimp-perl and SUSE, and am *very* interested.

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:13:57AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carol Spears [12-08-05 02:56]:

however, you are also not the person with the problem here....

But I too have the problem with gimp-perl and SUSE, and am *very* interested.

so, are we safe to assume that the problem is with SUSE?

i filed a bug report against glib recently. all of the people involved could have easily told me to go away. another thing is that it is about an extremely fine point in the build system between the gtk+ stack of software, one of the gnu build tools and also debian.

i am mentioning it now (and will be showing the bug itself) because it is three (mostly) volunteer groups who are taking the time to look at a problem in the build system for me. does SUSE have a method to communicate like that?

here is my bug report: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322885 it is not so important what the bug report is about so much as three different groups of developers are needing to look at it before it gets fixed and are. it is not as big of a problem as not being able to build a package on the distribution. compared to this problem, my bug report makes me look like a nitpick control freak -- in all honesty.

i think that a SUSE developer should be contacted and i would like to see how the contact is handled.

can either of you do this and get back to the list on how it goes?

carol

Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:13:57AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carol Spears [12-08-05 02:56]:

however, you are also not the person with the problem here....

But I too have the problem with gimp-perl and SUSE, and am *very* interested.

so, are we safe to assume that the problem is with SUSE?

Did anyone try the obvious yet and build a different plug-in - maybe one that only needs gimptool, and one of those that comes with a configure script of its own? Would make sense to check whether this is a bug in the gimp-perl build system or the gimp packaging of the platform before reporting bugs.

Michael

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 07:27:41PM +0100, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Carol Spears wrote:

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 08:13:57AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carol Spears [12-08-05 02:56]:

however, you are also not the person with the problem here....

But I too have the problem with gimp-perl and SUSE, and am *very* interested.

so, are we safe to assume that the problem is with SUSE?

Did anyone try the obvious yet and build a different plug-in - maybe one that only needs gimptool, and one of those that comes with a configure script of its own? Would make sense to check whether this is a bug in the gimp-perl build system or the gimp packaging of the platform before reporting bugs.

i did not suggest reporting a bug -- i have no idea how they work. i suggested contacting them.

it builds fine on debian. it builds fine on whatever seth is working on. i read of other people using it. the suggestion that other plug-ins be built is a good one -- it would take an interested SUSE user to build one though.

the fact that Patrick is having problems with it eliminates a lot of needing to prove there is a problem for me.

i would like to see how they work with that "Professional" titled distribution, personally -- just so you know i do have a personal interest in this.

carol

Myke C. Subs wrote:

Owen wrote:

A. set the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH to /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig/

mykec@linux:~> echo $PKG_CONFIG_PATH /opt/gnome/lib/pkgconfig

That's the only directory that's in my $PKG_CONFIG_PATH variable.

OK, almost give up, do you have gimp.h on your system?

Owen

On Thursday 08 December 2005 14:54, Carol Spears wrote: [...]

i did not suggest reporting a bug -- i have no idea how they work. i suggested contacting them.

it builds fine on debian. it builds fine on whatever seth is working on. i read of other people using it. the suggestion that other plug-ins be built is a good one -- it would take an interested SUSE user to build one though.

the fact that Patrick is having problems with it eliminates a lot of needing to prove there is a problem for me.

i would like to see how they work with that "Professional" titled distribution, personally -- just so you know i do have a personal interest in this.

carol

========
Ok, somebody help clue me in here. I've been following this thread somewhat, but not enough that I remember what it started about. Seems someone running SuSE tried to build/compile a plugin that needed gimp-perl, then everything got sidetracked with gimp-perl and harsh remarks about SuSE. Is that the gist of it?

It sounds like a simple problem overall, especially in SuSE. ;o)

It's those darn Debian users that confuse things while not following the LSB, etc. Maybe one day they can use a good Linux distro too? Don't you think SuSE people? ;o)

regards, Pat

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:32:01PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:

On Thursday 08 December 2005 14:54, Carol Spears wrote: [...]

i did not suggest reporting a bug -- i have no idea how they work. i suggested contacting them.

it builds fine on debian. it builds fine on whatever seth is working on. i read of other people using it. the suggestion that other plug-ins be built is a good one -- it would take an interested SUSE user to build one though.

the fact that Patrick is having problems with it eliminates a lot of needing to prove there is a problem for me.

i would like to see how they work with that "Professional" titled distribution, personally -- just so you know i do have a personal interest in this.

carol

========
Ok, somebody help clue me in here. I've been following this thread somewhat, but not enough that I remember what it started about. Seems someone running SuSE tried to build/compile a plugin that needed gimp-perl, then everything got sidetracked with gimp-perl and harsh remarks about SuSE. Is that the gist of it?

i did not mean to say anything bad about suse. i have been alive for several decades and have other experiences that make me question the title "professional" in things and when describing people. and not all experiences with the title have been bad either. it really simply seems to be independent of the word, whether the software or the person is such.

i stated and i meant it, that i have never used the distribution. this is the reason i wanted to know how it works. both to build things on and to get answers from.

It sounds like a simple problem overall, especially in SuSE. ;o)

yes it does.

It's those darn Debian users that confuse things while not following the LSB, etc. Maybe one day they can use a good Linux distro too? Don't you think SuSE people? ;o)

i use debian because the gimp people suggested it. working with debian and working with them have both been challenges.

i can make my computer work and i can make software work, but i cannot make a place for myself in the world. at this point, it seems that it would take little boys to grow up or old boys to shut up or other women to give it up -- i dunno.

does anyone know a good lawyer? forget the distribution and license wars. I am simply in need of a good lawyer now, myself. it is much more important than whether gimp-perl can build on suse or not. it is even more important than if gimp is better than other apps or can do this or has a useable gui.

this one human being needs a lawyer.

thanks,

carol

On Thursday 08 December 2005 23:26, Carol Spears wrote: [...]

i did not mean to say anything bad about suse. i have been alive for several decades and have other experiences that make me question the title "professional" in things and when describing people. and not all experiences with the title have been bad either. it really simply seems to be independent of the word, whether the software or the person is such.

i stated and i meant it, that i have never used the distribution. this is the reason i wanted to know how it works. both to build things on and to get answers from.
=========

Oh I understand Carol. I'm not pointing fingers either, I was just wondering what all the noise was about for such a simple thing, it seemed to me. Building/compiling things are as simple in SuSE as they are in any Linux. You need certain files & devel files installed to compile different programs. The compile will tell you if they aren't present. If certain programs haven't been updated to work with the newer GCC, you might run into problems, but that's not as likely as missing files. SuSE 10 uses the new GCC 4 now and I don't believe Debian is there yet. That's not an odd thing for Debian and sometimes it's difficult running a leading edge distro, but most times it's enjoyable.
---------

It's those darn Debian users that confuse things while not following the LSB, etc. Maybe one day they can use a good Linux distro too? Don't you think SuSE people? ;o)

i use debian because the gimp people suggested it. working with debian and working with them have both been challenges.

i can make my computer work and i can make software work, but i cannot make a place for myself in the world. at this point, it seems that it would take little boys to grow up or old boys to shut up or other women to give it up -- i dunno.

does anyone know a good lawyer? forget the distribution and license wars. I am simply in need of a good lawyer now, myself. it is much more important than whether gimp-perl can build on suse or not. it is even more important than if gimp is better than other apps or can do this or has a useable gui.

this one human being needs a lawyer.

thanks,

carol

* Carol Spears [12-08-05 23:29]:

i have been alive for several decades and have other experiences that make me question the title "professional" in things and when describing people. and not all experiences with the title have been bad either. it really simply seems to be independent of the word, whether the software or the person is such.

"Professional" merely distinguished the distro with two exellent paper manuals and a dvd or two containing the distro and source code. There was a lesser matching distro with no dvd's and only one manual, called an upgrade, iirc.

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:16:03PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carol Spears [12-08-05 23:29]:

i have been alive for several decades and have other experiences that make me question the title "professional" in things and when describing people. and not all experiences with the title have been bad either. it really simply seems to be independent of the word, whether the software or the person is such.

"Professional" merely distinguished the distro with two exellent paper manuals and a dvd or two containing the distro and source code. There was a lesser matching distro with no dvd's and only one manual, called an upgrade, iirc.

well, while we await for the recap of the problem you asked for from the SuSe users who cannot build gimp-perl, i find this thread to be interesting and cannot help but continueing with it.

i think the word "Professional" is being used the right way here. I have no problems with that. "Enabled Professional" though, might be not applicable since those documents failed and they are here asking for help from undefined volunteers. i like build problems though, it is extremely interesting.

you asked for a recap of build problems. i do not actually have any problems building things myself -- not really. i am very picky and have been pounding this one very fine point about the way my distribution, my build tools and my pet project work together. i build with gnu build tools on linux. i am using my own build of the kernel and my distribution is debian sid (where there are few promises and i know that). my pet project is everything from glib through gimp. because of the problem i had with this one fine point, i had to start building my window manager as well. here is the one problem: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322885 and the fact that three different developers from three different development communities are there looking at it speaks very well of all of the software i am using.

i am not a "Professional" and loathe to give myself this name. in fact, recently i have received personal email in which people asked me to define what it is that i do for gimp. my problems with defining my role have to do with the fact that as soon as i do this, i can probably be replaced by someone with "qualifications".

also, the way i ran around pestering the people in debian and libtool and glib/pango/gtk+ was anything but professional.

btw, being able to build gimp-perl has nothing to do with this bug report. i was able to use debian software and build gimp and gimp-perl for a very very long while now. one might call it "professionally enabled" that way. however, as i said, it is not like all three of these development communities do not have issues and problems you can easily show.

i am so impressed with the bug report and the participants. i am curious however if it really is a problem or if one or all of them there know what needs to be done to fix it.

it really made for some great mail though. i got this url from the gnu guy:
http://aquamarine.bikeshed.com/
he was consoling me when i was being hurt because the gtk+ developers were complaining about the way my patch also made the file more readible. without actually being a part of the debian community, i wonder how many of their problems are like this.

Maybe Novell could consider rehiring some of their linux staff and coming up with a distribution entitled "Professionally Enabled". i dunno, it has a certain flair and appeal to it, you think?

carol

* Carol Spears [12-09-05 17:05]:

Maybe Novell could consider rehiring some of their linux staff and coming up with a distribution entitled "Professionally Enabled". i dunno, it has a certain flair and appeal to it, you think?

Couple of points. The "Professional" tag was (in my mind) only a name intended to demonstrate more features or completeness or superiority to the other product. I agree with the appeal, but the tag no longer exists since the change in SUSE's approach. End users are now having input and access to beta builds and testing.

You keep referring to 'rehiring .. linux staff'. I beleive what I read indicated that it was not the linux staff (SUSE) that was let go, but other divisions.

The version of SUSE that I am using (9.0) is four versions old and may not be representative of the current situation, although the directory/file structure should be very close (Linux Standards Base).

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:22:10PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

You keep referring to 'rehiring .. linux staff'. I beleive what I read indicated that it was not the linux staff (SUSE) that was let go, but other divisions.

it is rumor on my part. i "heard" that the cuts were much greater in the linux areas porportionally than in any other operating system that Novell "supports". maybe i am wrong.

probably i am wrong though, the idea of Novell supporting MSWindows is funny to read when you put it is put that way. surely that must be wrong.

carol

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 06:20:17PM -0600, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Aaron Luptak wrote:

On 12/7/05, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Aaron Luptak wrote:

look at config.log - it found gimptool this time, but had another error.

http://mykec.com/mykec/config.log

Looks like you're missing glib.h - on my SuSE system, it's at /opt/gnome/include/glib-2.0/glib.h . I'd guess it's in the glib2-devel package on SuSE.

OK. glib2-devel wasn't installed on my system. It is now.

A dependency required pkgconfig to also be installed - so I'm guessing that that takes care of the missing pkg-config which Carol was telling me about.

Thanks, we'll see what happens now.

So, with installing glib2-devel, did that work? If not, install gtk-devel, pango-devel, and atk-devel as well.

It's rather disappointing that after all these years, SuSE still can't get their package dependencies right.

-Yosh

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 05:22:10PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Carol Spears [12-09-05 17:05]:

Maybe Novell could consider rehiring some of their linux staff and coming up with a distribution entitled "Professionally Enabled". i dunno, it has a certain flair and appeal to it, you think?

You keep referring to 'rehiring .. linux staff'. I beleive what I read indicated that it was not the linux staff (SUSE) that was let go, but other divisions.

There were layoffs across all divisions, including the SuSE and Ximian parts.

An investment bank came out with a report that recommended Novell treat Linux as a growth market (which it is) and only make cuts on their aging product lines. This, especially when coming from an investment banking firm, is surprisingly good long term advice, I'm puzzled why Novell didn't heed it.

-Yosh

Trying to answer Pat's cry for a summary...

On 12/5/05, Myke C. Subs wrote:

Hello All,

I've just joined this list. This is my first post to it.

I have been a happy GIMPer since 2000 until this year.

After Red Hat ditched me 2 years ago, I switched to Mandrake 8.2 and didn't like it. So this year I switched to SuSE 9.2 Pro and I like it a *lot* - except for the fact that the GIMP "upgrade" which comes with my distribution no longer includes my two long-time, most-used features: "Filters->Render->Add Glow" and "Layers->Center Layer".

Where have these gone and how do I get them back? Especially "Add Glow"... I *require* that one!

Let's see if it's possible to sum up this thread to-date...

These two features require a component with gimp known as "gimp-perl", which is the perl extension to the GIMP. This allows one to use plugins which are written in perl, of which these are two.

It seems that SUSE 9.2 does not appear to have a binary package for the latest version of gimp-perl (or at least a version compatable with the version of gimp you are using). Futhermore, the version of GIMP and GIMP development packages bundled with SUSE 9.2 does not appear to support building this plugin, probably due to an incompatability or other modification made somewhere that breaks gimp-perl's build system.

At this point, you have a couple of options:

1. Reverse the change that caused the problem.

If upgrading to a 2.x revision of GIMP caused the problem, downgrading to the previous version you had where this problem wasn't exhibited will solve the problem. This assumes your distribution allows downgrading.

2. Build GIMP, GIMP-perl and their dependencies from souce

The development packages in your distribution seem somewhat unique, and gimp-perl's build system doesn't recognize them. The lack of a _binary_ package for what you are looking for indicates that the only way to get the functionality may to be build it and its dependencies from source. It may be suitable, then, to build GIMP related binaries and libraries from source, such as GTK+, Pango, GIMP, gimp-perl, and the like.

3. Switch to a different distribution.

Various other distributions are known not to have this problem. Reported examples include Debian and Ubuntu, and others may be an option as well. Investigate your alternative thoroughly before exploring this option as it may be time consuming.

-- ~Mike
- Just the crazy copy cat.

On Saturday 10 December 2005 20:12, michael chang wrote:

Trying to answer Pat's cry for a summary...

[...]

--
~Mike
- Just the crazy copy cat.

========

Thanks Mike for the reprint. Also, no need to send out two mails. I'm on this list, so read the list mail. One mail to the list will suffice.

Sounds like the OP is confused at what they need to get things compiled. I'm sure all the chatter about how to solve it and the debate on distros has cleared things up considerably too. (not) ;o)

I'm guessing if SuSE thought it was needed, it would be installed as a dependency or be available to install for compiling. They are pretty efficient like that.

To Manish Singh: SuSE and YaST2 work as well or better than any other file install utility at solving dependencies. Thing you fail to realize is that -devel files are not dependencies. The main files don't need the -devel files to operate, nor does the system. They are only needed if the user intends to compile things. The best thing to do when installing any Linux is to just include -devel files or add them at install time.

later,
Pat

On Saturday 10 December 2005 13:50, Manish Singh wrote: [...]

So, with installing glib2-devel, did that work? If not, install gtk-devel, pango-devel, and atk-devel as well.

It's rather disappointing that after all these years, SuSE still can't get their package dependencies right.

-Yosh

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:10:50PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:

To Manish Singh:
SuSE and YaST2 work as well or better than any other file install utility at solving dependencies. Thing you fail to realize is that -devel files are not dependencies. The main files don't need the -devel files to operate, nor does the system. They are only needed if the user intends to compile things. The best thing to do when installing any Linux is to just include -devel files or add them at install time.

But one of Myke's problems was that he managed to get the gimp-devel package installed without having glib-devel installed. This means that despite the fact that *none* of the gimp header files work at all without glib's header files, SuSE neglected to specify a dependency between the two -devel packages. This has nothing to do with dependencies between the application binaries and the libraries.

So either SuSE screwed up, which they have a history of doing (glib-devel didn't depend on pkg-config for several releases, and I'm not sure if it's fixed even now), or Myke used rpm --force (which I doubt).

If you look at Debian or Red Hat, libgimp2.0-dev or gimp-devel have a dependency on libgtk2.0-dev or gtk2-devel, respectively, which of course lets apt/yum/yast/etc. do resolve things properly.

It sounds like you're the one who has failed to realize the -devel packages both can and do have dependencies.

-Yosh

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:14:29PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:

On Saturday 10 December 2005 13:50, Manish Singh wrote: [...]

So, with installing glib2-devel, did that work? If not, install gtk-devel, pango-devel, and atk-devel as well.

It's rather disappointing that after all these years, SuSE still can't get their package dependencies right.

-Yosh

On 12/10/05, BandiPat wrote:

On Saturday 10 December 2005 20:12, michael chang wrote:

Trying to answer Pat's cry for a summary...

[...]

--
~Mike
- Just the crazy copy cat.

========

Thanks Mike for the reprint. Also, no need to send out two mails. I'm on this list, so read the list mail. One mail to the list will suffice.

Okay.
I realized, the original would have been in the archives too somewhere, eh?

Sounds like the OP is confused at what they need to get things compiled. I'm sure all the chatter about how to solve it and the debate on distros has cleared things up considerably too. (not) ;o)

I guess the problem is that very few people have had success with SuSE on this list in regards to gimp-perl (or aren't speaking up). As such, those talking are recommending what they know works. *shrugs*

I'm guessing if SuSE thought it was needed, it would be installed as a dependency or be available to install for compiling. They are pretty efficient like that.

Efficiency can be troublesome. Whether a dependancy is neccessary is different from whether a dependency is useful -- often a package doesn't _need_ something per se, but either A) having it adds functionality that is often used, or B) having it is nice if you've got room. (I forget how RPM depends work, but I know Debian Packages have 3 levels of dependencies... that makes everything more complex because programs and users have to know which levels of depends to automatically fill and which levels not to filil, but the user can usually manually specify what s/he wants in the program...)

I think the critism is that users are following their intuition and SuSE is not the exact same as what they expect. (I fall guilty to this too.)

To Manish Singh:
SuSE and YaST2 work as well or better than any other file install utility at solving dependencies. Thing you fail to realize is that

As above, there are multiple levels of dependencies... some think more is better.

-devel files are not dependencies. The main files don't need the

No they aren't, and Debian, Fedora (I hope) and the like also recognize that. The issue is that -devel files may need other -devel files to work. For example, there is no point in having a patch for xyz for the linux kernel and trying to use it without having the linux kernel source, or at least the headers. [Whether I get the last two via kernel.org or a package from my distro is another issue - the key is that the thing gets found by whatever needs it...]

-devel files to operate, nor does the system. They are only needed if the user intends to compile things. The best thing to do when installing any Linux is to just include -devel files or add them at install time.

The essential question is if it is _NECESSARY_ to compile gimp-perl for the user's system. No one using SuSE has answered this.

Do you currently have a SuSE 9.2 Pro system accesssable to you? It would be nice if you could get gimp-perl 2.0 working with GIMP on it (preferably via binary packages, although any method is fine) and inform the original poster (CCed in this post -- BTW, Myke, are you on the list?) of how it is done. It would even be informative to just tell us that this is only available in SuSE 10 or newer or similar.

Again, if it is not possible to get it running, I hope downgrading to GIMP 1.2 is an option.

My only other thought is - could SuSE have gone and bundled gimp-perl with the system and then removed the scripts for "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"? If so, then those two script would have to be manually retrieved and placed in the correct location by the user... (I would hope this is just me being paranoid and very UNTRUE.)

-- ~Mike
- Just the crazy copy cat.

On Sunday 11 December 2005 05:16, Manish Singh wrote:

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 10:10:50PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:

To Manish Singh:
SuSE and YaST2 work as well or better than any other file install utility at solving dependencies. Thing you fail to realize is that -devel files are not dependencies. The main files don't need the -devel files to operate, nor does the system. They are only needed if the user intends to compile things. The best thing to do when installing any Linux is to just include -devel files or add them at install time.

[...]
So either SuSE screwed up, which they have a history of doing (glib-devel didn't depend on pkg-config for several releases, and I'm not sure if it's fixed even now), or Myke used rpm --force (which I doubt).

If you look at Debian or Red Hat, libgimp2.0-dev or gimp-devel have a dependency on libgtk2.0-dev or gtk2-devel, respectively, which of course lets apt/yum/yast/etc. do resolve things properly.

It sounds like you're the one who has failed to realize the -devel packages both can and do have dependencies.

-Yosh

Manish Singh writes:

But one of Myke's problems was that he managed to get the gimp-devel package installed without having glib-devel installed. This means that

SuSE users trying to get gimp-devel working (e.g. to compile plug-ins) will probably also need to install XFree86-libs-dev. I don't know if it's needed for gimp-perl, but it's needed for some plug-ins and isn't pulled in automatically.

...Akkana

On Sunday 11 December 2005 05:25, Manish Singh wrote: [...]

I put thought into it. As I pointed out in my other mail, it seems like you're the one who didn't think things through before sending out emails.

A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's dependency specification is broken.

SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples that have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config, aalib being linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a few more I can't recall off the top of my head right now.

Please next time actually read and comprehend what's going on in the thread instead of sending out poorly researched knee-jerk defenses of your pet Linux distro.

-Yosh
_______________________________________________

Yosh,
I'm convinced you like whatever distro you're using as I do mine, but I'm also very sure you haven't done much research into what you are commenting about.

Now there's no need for us to get into a distro war of words here, as that is not why the list is here. We are trying to solve problems folks are having with Gimp not run down a particular distro we don't use or like. Well I am, but your responses take on a different tone. You can't assume from a past experience or hearsay that what you say is true now about SuSE. Those of us that use it know how well it operates directly. Now let's move on to talking Gimp.

regards, Pat

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:25:07AM -0800, Manish Singh wrote:

A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's dependency specification is broken.

SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples that have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config, aalib being linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a few more I can't recall off the top of my head right now.

For Open SuSE 10:

# rpm -q -R -p gimp-devel-2.2.8-6.i586.rpm gtk2-devel
glib2-devel
glibc-devel
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)

Are you saying the above is incorrect? How so?

Please next time actually read and comprehend what's going on in the thread instead of sending out poorly researched knee-jerk defenses of your pet Linux distro.

Yeh ...

-- Patrick Mansfield

Akkana Peck wrote:

Manish Singh writes:

But one of Myke's problems was that he managed to get the gimp-devel package installed without having glib-devel installed. This means that

SuSE users trying to get gimp-devel working (e.g. to compile plug-ins) will probably also need to install XFree86-libs-dev. I don't know if it's needed for gimp-perl, but it's needed for some plug-ins and isn't pulled in automatically.

...Akkana

As far as I remember it was with the version 9.3 SuSE skipped the XFree, and now uses the xorg.
On my DVD-disk there are an 'xorg-x11-libs' file, but no '-devel' counterpart.

Does it mean, that all is included in the 'normal' file, or is 'the rest' just missing.
I have been used to SuSE through use for a couple of years, and as long as you are satisfied with their packages, it's a great system, but for the rest.......
I am trying out other distros on an extra disk, so I can always turn back to my productive system, but it is hard to find an replacement (with my skills - and interests).

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:27:17PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:

On Sunday 11 December 2005 05:25, Manish Singh wrote: [...]

I put thought into it. As I pointed out in my other mail, it seems like you're the one who didn't think things through before sending out emails.

A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's dependency specification is broken.

SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples that have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config, aalib being linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a few more I can't recall off the top of my head right now.

Please next time actually read and comprehend what's going on in the thread instead of sending out poorly researched knee-jerk defenses of your pet Linux distro.

-Yosh

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 10:41:47AM -0800, patman@aracnet.com wrote:

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:25:07AM -0800, Manish Singh wrote:

A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's dependency specification is broken.

SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples that have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config, aalib being linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a few more I can't recall off the top of my head right now.

For Open SuSE 10:

# rpm -q -R -p gimp-devel-2.2.8-6.i586.rpm gtk2-devel
glib2-devel
glibc-devel
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix)

Are you saying the above is incorrect? How so?

That looks fine with regards to -devel package dependencies. The original person who had the problem is using SuSE 9.2, which obviously is missing some of the above.

However, gimp-devel should also depend on gimp itself, so yes, the above has missing dependencies.

-Yosh

* Manish Singh [12-11-05 15:16]:

So yes, let's end this, and next time, stick to facts instead of your emotional attachment to your distro.

So Pat offers his hand and you slap his face, cannot accept a graceful exit. You present yourself as a pathetic, immature, classless individual.

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 03:28:32PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Manish Singh [12-11-05 15:16]:

So yes, let's end this, and next time, stick to facts instead of your emotional attachment to your distro.

So Pat offers his hand and you slap his face, cannot accept a graceful exit. You present yourself as a pathetic, immature, classless individual.

I complained about SuSE, not about anybody personally, and he replied to say I was wrong with precisely zero facts to back him up, and also calls me silly, and when I call him on his bullshit, he tries for a "graceful exit" as you say instead of being apologetic and reflecting upon his actions.

I'm unclear why you consider his actions justified and mine not. At least I'm posting technical content to a technical list.

-Yosh

On Sunday 11 December 2005 15:13, Manish Singh wrote: [...]

When distro people screw up and the support issues land here, I feel justified to express my displeasure of having to clean up their messes, especially since they actually charge money and have a support and QA staff who have a job to do.

You're the one who is dragging this on, and being insulting and not actually having any content in your attempt at rebuttals, so your tone is far far worse than mine.

So yes, let's end this, and next time, stick to facts instead of your emotional attachment to your distro.

-Yosh

On Sunday 11 December 2005 13:18, Akkana Peck wrote:

Manish Singh writes:

But one of Myke's problems was that he managed to get the gimp-devel package installed without having glib-devel installed. This means that

SuSE users trying to get gimp-devel working (e.g. to compile plug-ins) will probably also need to install XFree86-libs-dev. I don't know if it's needed for gimp-perl, but it's needed for some plug-ins and isn't pulled in automatically.

...Akkana

On Sunday 11 December 2005 12:07, michael chang wrote: [...]

The essential question is if it is _NECESSARY_ to compile gimp-perl for the user's system. No one using SuSE has answered this.

Do you currently have a SuSE 9.2 Pro system accesssable to you? It would be nice if you could get gimp-perl 2.0 working with GIMP on it (preferably via binary packages, although any method is fine) and inform the original poster (CCed in this post -- BTW, Myke, are you on the list?) of how it is done. It would even be informative to just tell us that this is only available in SuSE 10 or newer or similar.

Again, if it is not possible to get it running, I hope downgrading to GIMP 1.2 is an option.

My only other thought is - could SuSE have gone and bundled gimp-perl with the system and then removed the scripts for "Add Glow" and "Center Layer"? If so, then those two script would have to be manually retrieved and placed in the correct location by the user... (I would hope this is just me being paranoid and very UNTRUE.)

-- ~Mike
- Just the crazy copy cat.

========
hey Mike,
I wasn't intending to get drawn into this problem as much as I have, but circumstances has created a problem I want to solve now. :o)

I do have a 9.2 available to me, so I can compile or check things there to test for Myke's setup. Since I don't have the plug-in that Myke needs or is missing, I need to get that first. At that point I should be able to determine what is needed to run it. I will assume that these plug-ins will still run in Gimp 2.x?? I know many of these things have been changed and many updated along the way. I remember hearing about several python plug-ins, but not much about the Perl ones. If the plug-ins Myke is needing will no longer work in 2.x Gimp, this whole discussion is a mute point.

In the meantime, I'll check the 9.2 DVD and the installed 9.2 setup. I don't think we have a world changing problem here, so hopefully we'll have an answer soon.

end of line Pat

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:27:17PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:

On Sunday 11 December 2005 05:25, Manish Singh wrote: [...]

I put thought into it. As I pointed out in my other mail, it seems like you're the one who didn't think things through before sending out emails.

A gimp-devel package *must* have a dependency that either directly or indirectly pulls in glib-devel. If it doesn't, the package's dependency specification is broken.

SuSE has a history of being shoddy in this regard, other examples that have affected gimp are glib-devel not requiring pkg-config, aalib being linked against slang but not requiring slang-devel, and a few more I can't recall off the top of my head right now.

Please next time actually read and comprehend what's going on in the thread instead of sending out poorly researched knee-jerk defenses of your pet Linux distro.

-Yosh

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 03:54:33PM -0500, BandiPat wrote:

On Sunday 11 December 2005 15:13, Manish Singh wrote: [...]

When distro people screw up and the support issues land here, I feel justified to express my displeasure of having to clean up their messes, especially since they actually charge money and have a support and QA staff who have a job to do.

You're the one who is dragging this on, and being insulting and not actually having any content in your attempt at rebuttals, so your tone is far far worse than mine.

So yes, let's end this, and next time, stick to facts instead of your emotional attachment to your distro.

-Yosh

To recap:

OP is having trouble building gimp-perl. He's told to install the gimp-devel package. Fine advice, and something a newbie may not realize at first.

Installing gimp-devel should've been enough, but he got another error. After further analysis, it became apparent that he was missing the glib headers, and needed the glib-devel package. The OP then said that he'd install that package and try again.

My first post to this thread was to ask if installing glib-devel helped him get past the error, and if it didn't, he should try installing gtk-devel and friends and see if that works. This was potential help to the OP.

I also expressed my dismay about how SuSE still hasn't gotten their dependencies right. For SuSE 9.2, which the OP is using, my complaint was completely accurate, as evidenced by:

http://rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/suse/9.2/i386/suse/i586/gimp-devel-2.0.4-3.1.i586.html

RH and Debian have got the dependencies right from day one, meaning more than 5 years ago. SuSE didn't with 9.2. Mandriva also has a history of screwing things up too.

SLES9 notably doesn't have pkg-config has a dependency for glib2-devel. This is harder to provide a reference for, as SLES9 is not publicably available online. I used to use SLES9 as part of my job, so I've had experience with it directly. I have many complaints about it, and I'm pretty happy to not have to deal with it anymore.

In the SuSE 8.x days, a frequent compile error that people ran into when building the aa plugin in GIMP was that aalib was built against slang, but aalib-devel didn't depend on slang-devel, so the build failed. You can find references to this on the gimp mailing lists in 2003.

Now, with SuSE 10 the -devel deps seem to be there, but there still is a problem that the gimp-devel package doesn't depend on gimp itself, which can lead to a problem that someone could upgrade the gimp package without upgrading the gimp-devel package, and that being perfectly valid in the package management system's view, but not even remotely valid from a GIMP view.

Given SuSE's history, and gimp users having run into problems of this nature for years and years, being unhappy with SuSE for still not getting things right in 2005 is perfectly just.

BandiPat seems to think something in the above is "wrong", but is unable to actually point out any specifics, and thus resorts to handwaving and calling people silly instead of actually having facts. Until he realizes that being stupid and stubborn and letting ego get in the way isn't the right thing, he is persona non-grata on this list.

-Yosh