[gentoo-user] gimp-9999 failed to compile

[gentoo-user] gimp-9999 failed to compile

[Nickolay Hodyunya]

I was trying to compile latest gimp from svn, but it fail because gegl
version in ports is 0.0.20 but gimp-9999 requires >=0.0.21. Have I any chance
to see this version in ports tree?
-- 
Regards, Nickolay Hodyunya.

Re: [gentoo-user] gimp-9999 failed to compile

[Liviu Andronic]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Nickolay Hodyunya <nickolayh@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was trying to compile latest gimp from svn, but it fail because gegl
> version in ports is 0.0.20 but gimp-9999 requires >=0.0.21. Have I any chance
> to see this version in ports tree?
>
Did you try renaming the gegl ebuild to smth like 0.0.21, in
/usr/local overlay, and emerging it?
Liviu

Re: [gentoo-user] gimp-9999 failed to compile

[Nickolay Hodyunya]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 01:05:16PM +0100, Liviu Andronic wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Nickolay Hodyunya <nickolayh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was trying to compile latest gimp from svn, but it fail because gegl
> > version in ports is 0.0.20 but gimp-9999 requires >=0.0.21. Have I any chance
> > to see this version in ports tree?
> >
> Did you try renaming the gegl ebuild to smth like 0.0.21, in
> /usr/local overlay, and emerging it?
> Liviu
> 
Yes, but it seems 0.0.21 is not even released, because there is no files to fetch
from ftp.gimp.org for this version. 
-- 
Regards, Nickolay Hodyunya.

Re: [gentoo-user] gimp-9999 failed to compile

[Liviu Andronic]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Nickolay Hodyunya <nickolayh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but it seems 0.0.21 is not even released, because there is no files to fetch
> from ftp.gimp.org for this version.
>
Dunno, perhaps they rely on SVN version. I would try to compile the
code "manually", and see if the GIMP ./configure complains.
Liviu

Re: [gentoo-user] gimp-9999 failed to compile

[Albert Hopkins]

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 12:21 +0700, Nickolay Hodyunya wrote:
> Yes, but it seems 0.0.21 is not even released, because there is no
> files to fetch
> from ftp.gimp.org for this version. 

Well, sometimes that happens when you build from trunk (and why it's
usually discouraged).

Re: [gentoo-user] gimp-9999 failed to compile

[Helmut Jarausch]

On 27 Oct, Nickolay Hodyunya wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 01:05:16PM +0100, Liviu Andronic wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Nickolay Hodyunya <nickolayh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I was trying to compile latest gimp from svn, but it fail because gegl
>> > version in ports is 0.0.20 but gimp-9999 requires >=0.0.21. Have I any chance
>> > to see this version in ports tree?
>> >
>> Did you try renaming the gegl ebuild to smth like 0.0.21, in
>> /usr/local overlay, and emerging it?
>> Liviu
>> 
> Yes, but it seems 0.0.21 is not even released, because there is no files to fetch
> from ftp.gimp.org for this version. 

It needs gegl svn. To do those I've built an entry in my overlay tree.

If your interested I can send this to you by email.
But it's not funny since there is patch 
gegl-21-configure-ac.patch
derived ffrom gegl-20-configure-ac.patch
which has to be adapted to the current svn version.

-- 
Helmut Jarausch

Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
RWTH - Aachen University
D 52056 Aachen, Germany

Re: [gentoo-user] gimp-9999 failed to compile

[Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto]

> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 12:21 +0700, Nickolay Hodyunya wrote:
>> Yes, but it seems 0.0.21 is not even released, because there is no
>> files to fetch
>> from ftp.gimp.org for this version.
>
> Well, sometimes that happens when you build from trunk (and why it's
> usually discouraged).

That is not the only reason it is usually discouraged... the main
reason is that the code itself is often broken.
By the way, there is a contradiction among a subset of the Gentoo
users. They spend a lot of time optimizing their system
(sometimes even being irresponsible, using absurd CFLAGS), but at the
same time they install the very latest software, while 95% of software
gets slower with each release. Using the most recent, untested
software often leads to bugs and very often leads to decreased
performance.
What a rational person would do (in my opinion) is
1) A generally stable (no ~arch) system.
2) A few ~arch packages, where the ~arch versions really have important
features, and they outweigh the unreliability. One example would be
multimedia software, and perhaps Firefox (3.0 is still ~x86).
3) Zero or very few hardmasked or unkeyworded packages, including cvs
software. They are hardmasked for a reason.

Of course, some people do have a rational reason to download software
from cvs, such as developers of that particular software.
--
Software is like sex: it is better when it is free - Linus Torvalds