On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:49:43PM -0500, Robert L Krawitz wrote: > From: Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:36:29 +0100 > > Robert L Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > There could be plenty of other reasons why, of course. But it isn't > > FUD for people to report that they're having problems compiling and > > running GTK 2.6 against a particular distribution. Multiple people > > reporting the same thing suggests there's an issue, but doesn't > > pinpoint where it is. > > I am only asking that you show us what problems exactly you have when > building gtk+, so that we can help you to solve them. Saying that > there are "a lot of problems" doesn't help at all and is what I would > consider spreading FUD. We are trying to move GIMP development along > and we will need to use GTK+-2.6 to make this happen. So it should be > our goal to make sure that all developers update glib and gtk+. > Telling them that this update will cause problems, but not saying what > problems these are, doesn't help anyone. > > It's been a while since I tried it (when GIMP 2.2 came out), so I > don't remember for certain what happened. It may have even been > something getting confused about /usr vs. /usr/local (in which case it > wouldn't be a GTK problem at all), but I honestly don't remember. Fairly likely. Mixing libraries and headers in system paths often leads to trouble. There's always the option of sticking things into non-system dirs (e.g., $HOME/devel) using ./configure --prefix, and setting PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and PKG_CONFIG_PATH. On several machines I use, I stick the HEAD versions of glib, gtk+ etc., along with HEAD gimp there. Doing this makes it much harder to do whatever catastrophic screwups people do that messes up their working system. One can install the new gtk+ just for gimp and be fine. -Yosh
