Von: "John R. Culleton"

Where do I get the specific Parser.pm that Gimp needs and where do I put it where Gimp can find it?

Directly from CPAN, for example. I haven't done much with Perl in the past years, but if it hasn't changed, then do

perl -MCPAN -e shell

and follow the instructions to install XML::Parser (or other modules). If Slackware offers this as a package, then you should prefer that one, of course.

HTH,
Michael

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 09:34:10AM -0500, John R. Culleton wrote:

I cannot compile the unstable Gimp because of one stupid thing. the ./configure always blows up on this message: -------------------------------------------- checking for perl... /usr/local/bin/perl checking for XML::Parser... configure: error: XML::Parser perl module is required for intltool
----------------------------------
Now I have a standard Slackware distro including Perl. I have files called Parser.pm all over the place. Where do I get the specific Parser.pm that Gimp needs and where do I put it where Gimp can find it?

I have asked about this before, but never got an answer.

i am using debian sid. i just searched their cache for "XML::Parser" and from that list i think (if i had your problem) i would install the package called libxml-perl.

part of the art of running slackware is to be able to work from information like this?

carol

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 07:58:24PM -0500, John R. Culleton wrote:

On Friday 03 February 2006 02:57 pm, Carol Spears wrote:

Now I have a problem with GLIB. Versions up thorugh gimp 2.3.3 don't have the problem.. Versions newer than that complain about an obsolete GLIB. I updated glib to 2.8.2 and now there is a mismatch between what I have and what some program finds. There are lots of clever hints printed out about how to get around the problem, none of which work for me. Fortunately I always have virgin partition laying around to compensate for my own fumbling. I had to move one file around but then 2.3.3 would compile. It still won't compile on my main partition. But bottom line I now have 2.3.3.Newer versions won't compile in either partition.

purely from an observers point of view, they try to step together. from glib through gimp. it is all the family of gimp-0.6, i think. unlike living families, a group of software like glib through gimp are dependent on each other.

slackware is when you install something and only upgrade when it is convinient, benefical or interesting to you, right?

My principal concern is, what happens when 2.4 comes out? Will it require an upgrade to my glib? How much misery grief and woe can I expect?

of course you will have to do this. how much of your computer relies on glib?

carol

John R. Culleton wrote:

Now I have a problem with GLIB. Versions up thorugh gimp 2.3.3 don't have the problem.. Versions newer than that complain about an obsolete GLIB. I updated glib to 2.8.2 and now there is a mismatch between what I have and what some program finds. There are lots of clever hints printed out about how to get around the problem, none of which work for me. Fortunately I always have virgin partition laying around to compensate for my own fumbling. I had to move one file around but then 2.3.3 would compile. It still won't compile on my main partition. But bottom line I now have 2.3.3.Newer versions won't compile in either partition.

I'm also a Slackware user and have the latest glib and gtk+ libraries installed. Feel free to e-mail me if you need help getting everything straightened out. I've had similar problems with other apps and got them resolved once I made sure I had everything installed where I expected them to be as well as the app I was building. :)

I've got Gimp 2.2.10 running and Gimp 2.3.6 compiled but not installed since it fails a MMX composite test during "make test".

Peace...

Tom

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:53:03PM -0800, Tom Williams wrote:

I'm also a Slackware user and have the latest glib and gtk+ libraries installed. Feel free to e-mail me if you need help getting everything straightened out. I've had similar problems with other apps and got them resolved once I made sure I had everything installed where I expected them to be as well as the app I was building. :)

I've got Gimp 2.2.10 running and Gimp 2.3.6 compiled but not installed since it fails a MMX composite test during "make test".

does it fail this test if you ./configure --enable-mmx=no ?

there is a chance that all of that mmx stuff was just Helvetix showing off.

carol

Carol Spears wrote:

does it fail this test if you ./configure --enable-mmx=no ?

there is a chance that all of that mmx stuff was just Helvetix showing off.

I don't know. It's not critical for me to have the 2.3.x development releases running. I was able to get 2.3.5 built and installed. I've always had problems with MMX support and I even opened a bug report on my previous issue. :)

I can certainly do a build with MMX disabled to see if that works and report back my findings.

Peace...

Tom

John R. Culleton wrote:

Tom, I never saw your original post but only Carol's reply. If you could help me dig my way out of the swamp off list or on list I would be grateful. I have Slack 10.2 installed. When Gimp 2.3.6 failed I tried to upgrade my libs and thoroughly messed them up. But I have a clean copy on another partition. So my game will be to upgrade on that partiton with your help.

Did you use slack Current or do you go directly to another source? If so, what sites? Did you deinstall the Slack packages first or not? What exactly did you upgrade?

All assistance appreciated.

We can do this off list so we won't clutter it. :) Once we get you up and running, we can post an update for other Slackware users. :)

Shoot me an e-mail if you haven't already.

Peace...

Tom

Carol Spears wrote:

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:53:03PM -0800, Tom Williams wrote:

I'm also a Slackware user and have the latest glib and gtk+ libraries installed. Feel free to e-mail me if you need help getting everything straightened out. I've had similar problems with other apps and got them resolved once I made sure I had everything installed where I expected them to be as well as the app I was building. :)

I've got Gimp 2.2.10 running and Gimp 2.3.6 compiled but not installed since it fails a MMX composite test during "make test".

does it fail this test if you ./configure --enable-mmx=no ?

there is a chance that all of that mmx stuff was just Helvetix showing off.

When I build Gimp 2.3.6 with "--disable-mmx", make check runs fine. :)

Peace...

Tom

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:15:17PM -0500, John R. Culleton wrote:

Heh. I set up Debian sarge, downloaded Gimp 2.3.8? and tried to compile. Now I am back to the missing XML::Parser problem again. This is a fresh compile on a new partion with a different version of linux. I suggest that there myust be something awry other than the nut in front of the keyboard. Maybe something needs to be included in Gimp 2.4 when it comes out.

sure, i will go here again. "apt-cache search XML::Parser" gave me a list of files. the same files that were listed when this thread started.

from this list, libxml-parser-perl and/or libxml-perl see to be the most likely to contain the software that you need.

is it something that libtool needs?

carol

John R. Culleton wrote:

Heh. I set up Debian sarge, downloaded Gimp 2.3.8? and tried to compile. Now I am back to the missing XML::Parser problem again.

Did you ignore my first mail in this thread?

Michael

John R. Culleton wrote:

Not at all. I was noting that on two different flavors of linux it is necessary to download and install material beyond that contained in the Gimp download in order to get it to compile. And that wasn't true in prior versions.

Um... you're kidding, right?

GTK+ Glib
libpng
libjpeg
gcc
make
...

are also required and not included.

Perhaps the missing module should be put in with the Gimp tarball if that is legal and practical.

Sorry, but after your previous statement I have troubles to take you serious. Maybe you could help to solve my confusion and tell me why you thinks this could ever be practical?

HTH, Michael

glib and gtk+ and other libs required by Gimp might be part of any current Linux distro but they might not be the right versions required by any given Gimp version.

As for the XML::Parser perl module, perl installations that come with Linux distros will have some perl modules installed but not all. I think it's reasonable to require the system owner or the person who is building Gimp to make sure external libs and apps are configured per Gimp's requirements. In this case, that means the system owner is responsible for making sure perl is setup per Gimp's requirements unless Gimp is being built with perl support disabled (if that is an option).

Peace...

Tom

"John R. Culleton" gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Sent by: cc gimp-user-bounces @lists.XCF.Berkel Subject ey.EDU Re: [Gimp-user] One stupid thing 02/10/2006 02:27 PM

On Friday 10 February 2006 04:46 pm, Michael Schumacher wrote:

John R. Culleton wrote:

Not at all. I was noting that on two different flavors of linux it is necessary to download and install material beyond that contained in the Gimp download in order to get it to compile. And that wasn't true in prior versions.

Um... you're kidding, right?

GTK+ Glib
libpng
libjpeg
gcc
make
...

are also required and not included.

All these and Perl are either included in a standard "full" installation of e.g., Slackware or Debian Sarge, As I stated earler previous editions of Gimp have compiled without difficulty. I have Slackware Current up to date as of yesterday. I have Debian Sarge up to
date as of yesterday. I can compile older versions of Gimp.

My concern is not so much with 2.3.x but with 2.4. If that stable version requires software bits and pieces not found on most Linux systems and not downloadable from ww.gimp.org then there is trouble ahead.

--
John Culleton
Books with answers to marketing and publishing questions: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/shortlist.pdf

Book coaches, consultants and packagers: http://wexfordpress.com/tex/packagers.pdf

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:27:23PM -0500, John R. Culleton wrote:

On Friday 10 February 2006 04:46 pm, Michael Schumacher wrote:

John R. Culleton wrote:

Not at all. I was noting that on two different flavors of linux it is necessary to download and install material beyond that contained in the Gimp download in order to get it to compile. And that wasn't true in prior versions.

Um... you're kidding, right?

GTK+ Glib
libpng
libjpeg
gcc
make
...

are also required and not included.

All these and Perl are either included in a standard "full" installation of e.g., Slackware or Debian Sarge, As I stated earler previous editions of Gimp have compiled without difficulty. I have Slackware Current up to date as of yesterday. I have Debian Sarge up to date as of yesterday. I can compile older versions of Gimp.

My concern is not so much with 2.3.x but with 2.4. If that stable version requires software bits and pieces not found on most Linux systems and not downloadable from ww.gimp.org then there is trouble ahead.

we were discussing this on the irc.

XML::Parser is needed by intltool and has been for some time now.

my thoughts when you mentioned needing this (additional) software from two different distributions was in trying to figure out how this could have happened.

i do not install a lot of the stuff that is needed for one of these all knowing and all responsive desktops. this means i am building things on what many of the users would consider a minimal set up.

i wonder if this fact about the way i use my computer combined with the way distributions are separating their packages in a way that might not be apparent from the source web sites -- perhaps there is a dependency check that is not registering somewhere.

debian purposely breaks libtool the other way. it insists on seeing software that has been purposely and perfectly placed so it won't build and refusing to build at that point instead of going where it knows (or can easily determine) where to go. they like it that way. they closed my bug report. i can talk you through how to build things on sarge so that you can see what i am talking about.

everyone i spoke to about my problem was very nice, btw.

carol

John R. Culleton wrote:

Not at all. I was noting that on two different flavors of linux it is necessary to download and install material beyond that contained in the Gimp download in order to get it to compile. And that wasn't true in prior versions. Perhaps the missing module should be put in with the Gimp tarball if that is legal and practical.

That suggestion would imply that all dependencies be packaged which is nonsense!

Owen

John R. Culleton wrote:

Not at all. I was noting that on two different flavors of linux it is necessary to download and install material beyond that contained in the Gimp download in order to get it to compile. And that wasn't true in prior versions. Perhaps the missing module should be put in with the Gimp tarball if that is legal and practical.

i imagine that when you compiled prior versions of the Gimp you failed to notice that you already had libraries/headers et al required to compile. an easy mistake.

as long as i can remember the Gimp has been dependent on external libraries for compilation. there are very few applications that aren't.

it would be great to be able to ship all the sources required to compile but frankly that would produce a very large tarball; each time you download the sources you'd be downloading these extra libraries all over again. that would be boring.

there are a number of other complications/inefficiences involved also. one that comes to mind are the difficulties produced by duplicate libraries. for instance, imagine having a libjpeg installation from your distribution (/usr/lib) *and* another from our hypothetical Gimp source tarball (/usr/local/lib).

of course you could throw all the sources of dependencies (if legal) into this tarball, compile and install them to a non-system wide location, and then link against them. this would produce what is known as a statically linked binary.

Apple users are used to this, but they are also used to having duplicate libs scattered all over the system; static linking is esp common in their ~/Applications directory - very messy.

as a Linux user however, this would drive me bonkers..

Julian