On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:50:36PM -0500, Eric P wrote:

I can't remember if I asked this before or not, but does anybody make any 2.3.x packages for deb?

I used to compile my own these past few years on Suse w/checkinstall to stay up on development progress, but since switching to Debian earlier this year I haven't got back on board.

I think I tried compiling 2.3.1 back a few months ago, but checkinstall failed to make a deb package... (going off a foggy memory).

it is easy to build your own on debian. i build mine in /usr/local though so, it is not the same as getting it from them.

the developers have a plea to distributions to not distribute the development version (still the odd numbers: 1.3, 2.1, 2.3...) somewhere in the source where they might read it. the debian packager reads it.

Can anyone spank me onto the straight and narrow here?

spanking is not my department.

carol

Von: Carol Spears

On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:50:36PM -0500, Eric P wrote:

I can't remember if I asked this before or not, but does anybody make any 2.3.x packages for deb?

it is easy to build your own on debian. i build mine in /usr/local though so, it is not the same as getting it from them.

If I'm not mistkane, it is not advised to install into any /usr prefix - the release notes mention /opt, and I've chosen a directory in my $HOME.

the developers have a plea to distributions to not distribute the development version (still the odd numbers: 1.3, 2.1, 2.3...) somewhere in the source where they might read it. the debian packager reads it.

Not that strict anymore, all what is requested is to make it clear that this is a development release. Some people qrgue that it is too eraly in the release cycle, OTOH binaries for the development releases could e.g. help participants of http://openusability.org/projects/gimp to evaluate more recent versions of The GIMP.

Can anyone spank me onto the straight and narrow here?

spanking is not my department.

For simply testing the 2.3 releases, I wouldn't create a Debian package, just install it where it can do no harm to your system.

HTH, Michael

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:42:55AM +0200, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Von: Carol Spears

On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:50:36PM -0500, Eric P wrote:

I can't remember if I asked this before or not, but does anybody make any 2.3.x packages for deb?

it is easy to build your own on debian. i build mine in /usr/local though so, it is not the same as getting it from them.

If I'm not mistkane, it is not advised to install into any /usr prefix - the release notes mention /opt, and I've chosen a directory in my $HOME.

it is the configure default.

For simply testing the 2.3 releases, I wouldn't create a Debian package, just install it where it can do no harm to your system.

you can even have both, although they share the */2.0/* directory name. better to make sure before you try to install your own that you do not have debians libgimp-dev. let the distribution only have lib-gimp binaries.

carol

On 10/4/05, Eric P wrote:

I can't remember if I asked this before or not, but does anybody make any 2.3.x packages for deb?

They're not supposed to...

I used to compile my own these past few years on Suse w/checkinstall to stay up on development progress, but since switching to Debian earlier this year I haven't got back on board.

I think I tried compiling 2.3.1 back a few months ago, but checkinstall failed to make a deb package... (going off a foggy memory).

You'd need various deb creation utilities... dpkg, etc. etc. etc. (checkinstall worked for me, until my Debian system died when I pushed Ctrl-C at the wrong time during ldconfig for another program).

Can anyone spank me onto the straight and narrow here?

You're usually suggested to install into e.g. /opt/gimp-2.3 and then place that in your PATH.

--
~Mike
- Just my two cents
- No man is an island, and no man is unable.

Eric P wrote:

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:42:55AM +0200, Michael Schumacher wrote:

For simply testing the 2.3 releases, I wouldn't create a Debian package, just install it where it can do no harm to your system.

Michael, I took your tip and stuck it in ~/.gimp

You're absolutely right. Why make a package when I'll just keep compiling devel releases for a while?

Hm, don't know whether this is a good choice - directories with a leading dot are hidden therefore usually used for settings.

While it is no technical problem to do it like this, you're confusing the semantics of such directories.

HTH, Michael