Finally gimp 2.8

mlpa · 05-03-2012, 09:42 AM

At last gimp 2.8, with single window mode, is out.

TobiSGD · 05-03-2012, 10:19 AM

I hope that comes soon in -current (should be much easier to use it with tiling WMs), but it needs a bunch of system libraries to be upgraded, so this may take some time.

FeyFre · 05-03-2012, 10:25 AM

They are(GIMP developers) so-o-o-o lazy. I have tired to wait until they began to move their asses.

guanx · 05-03-2012, 10:40 AM

For me MDI is not appealing to all. I can use a dedicated virtual desktop for GIMP.

The most important thing is to open 16-bit per channel TIFF.

GazL · 05-03-2012, 12:55 PM

I started working through the dependencies of this until I got to glib 2.30 which fails to build with

Code:

configure: error: Package requirements (libffi >= 3.0.0) were not met:

No package 'libffi' found

Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you
installed software in a non-standard prefix.

Alternatively, you may set the environment variables LIBFFI_CFLAGS
and LIBFFI_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config.
See the pkg-config man page for more details.
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.

I tracked libffi down to http://sourceware.org/libffi/ which says that 3.0.11 was released recently and appears to be what it's looking for but there is already a libffi 4 on the system (albeit without a libffi.pc or any header files) from the gcc-java package.

Code:

root@slackbox:~/build/patches-current/source/glib2# grep libffi /var/log/packages/*
/var/log/packages/gcc-java-4.7.0-x86_64-1:usr/lib64/libffi.so.4.0.1
/var/log/packages/gcc-java-4.7.0-x86_64-1:usr/lib64/libffi.a
/var/log/packages/gcc-java-4.7.0-x86_64-1:usr/lib64/libffi.la
/var/log/packages/swig-1.3.38-x86_64-2:usr/doc/swig-1.3.38/Examples/python/libffi/
/var/log/packages/swig-1.3.38-x86_64-2:usr/doc/swig-1.3.38/Examples/python/libffi/Makefile
/var/log/packages/swig-1.3.38-x86_64-2:usr/doc/swig-1.3.38/Examples/python/libffi/example.i

... so I'm really not sure what is going on here.

andrew.46 · 05-03-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyFre

They are(GIMP developers) so-o-o-o lazy. I have tired to wait until they began to move their asses.

I am sure that they all have 'day' jobs......

ponce · 05-03-2012, 01:16 PM

@GazL
http://lists.slackbuilds.org/piperma...ry/008555.html
http://lists.slackbuilds.org/piperma...ry/008556.html
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...9/#post4378678

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-12/msg00137.html

GazL · 05-03-2012, 04:49 PM

Thanks for that ponce. Looking in the ffi.h header which I found hidden away in usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.7.0/include it looks like gcc 4.7.0 includes v3.0.9 of libffi

Manually adding the following got things progressing

Code:

root@slackbox:~# cat /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/libffi.pc 
prefix=/usr
exec_prefix=${prefix}
libdir=/usr/lib64
includedir=/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-slackware-linux/4.7.0/include

Name: libffi
Description: Library supporting Foreign Function Interfaces
Version: 3.0.9
Libs: -L${libdir} -lffi
Cflags: -I${includedir}

I don't understand why that header is hidden down there rather than in somewhere like /usr/include though where one would expect it to live.

Right... on with the dependences.

willysr · 05-03-2012, 07:02 PM

Here's my build order and packages i used to build on GIMP-2.8.0

Quote:

GIMP-2.8.0
- babl-0.1.10
- gegl-0.2.0
- atk-2.4.0
- glib2-2.32.1
- libffi-3.0.11 (available on SBo)
- gtk+ 2.24.10
- pango-1.30
- gdk-pixbuf 2.26.1

i keep using gtk+2 on 2.24.x even though all the requirements to build gtk+3 3.4 has been installed on my machine because it *may* break compatibilities with other applications that uses GTK+.

Click image for larger version

Name: gimp-2.8.jpg
Views: 103
Size: 233.3 KB
ID: 9600

Mark Pettit · 05-04-2012, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyFre

They are(GIMP developers) so-o-o-o lazy. I have tired to wait until they began to move their asses.

Hmmm - that's not a very nice statement. Perhaps English is not your first language. Where I come from, we show appreciation for things that are given to us. From my side, I appreciate all the work and effort that the GIMP developers (well really all free/open-source developers) have put into releasing the code so that we can use it. GIMP has always been a viable alternative to PhotoShop, and in terms of cost (real money) has beaten it easily.

FeyFre · 05-04-2012, 04:50 AM

@Mark Pettit, truth cannot be nice, not very nice, or not nice.

Quote:

Hmmm - that's not a very nice statement. Perhaps English is not your first language.

If I could find more polite, but at least half precise word be sure I used it.

Quote:

Where I come from, we show appreciation for things that are given to us.

We do too. But keyword is given. I don't think GIMP is "given" to us. It rather "thrown" to us. GIMP is released, but I cannot try it. How it can be named?

TobiSGD · 05-04-2012, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeyFre

I don't think GIMP is "given" to us. It rather "thrown" to us. GIMP is released, but I cannot try it. How it can be named?

So because your OS currently don't support GIMP because of older libraries the GIMP developers are lazy? That is a rather strange view, I would think.
Simple solution, if you want to test the latest and greatest software you can a) get your hands dirty and compile the needed libraries yourself, or b) make a minimal install of Arch, may be in a VM, for testing purposes. Oh wait, not even Arch has at this time GIMP 2.8 packages. Lazy, lazy GIMP developers.

Mark Pettit · 05-04-2012, 05:28 AM

@FeyFre.

I honestly believe that you have no idea how rude your remarks are. This has to be a language issue. Please place yourself into the position of a GIMP developer - you have spent months/years of your unpaid time to produce this new version. You release the code on the GIMP website. And then along comes some Slackware user and complains that he can't use the code. What has that got to do with the developer ? Nothing ! Once the new version has been tested by the very capable people who maintain Slackware (Pat,Rob,AlienBOb, etc), we will get it. Until then, you are free to download the code and try to build it yourself. Be assured this is no easy task. That's why we wait for people who are smarter than us to do it for us.

guanx · 05-04-2012, 07:09 AM

Interesting. Things has come to digging out our origins.

My first language is not English, either. But @Mark\ Pettit, I find Ubuntu from Africa, and I find maintenance nightmare from Ubuntu. Still I cannot associate nightmare to your place of origin. Can I?

And I don't believe that the GIMP developers are unpaid.

@FeyFre's comment about laziness is definitely not appreciative. But it's fair to the extent that no binary is released. Of course developers must have built binaries to debug their program. These binaries can be released, at least, for the Windose platform.

I am no open sourcist, nor free softwarrior, nor communist, nor christian, ... I would not judge things by my belief.

Best regards,

Mark Pettit · 05-04-2012, 07:38 AM

@guanx.
Wow - Quite a mouthful. Let's take your point one at a time.

1) Ubuntu is not from South Africa, altho it's true that the sponsor (Mark Shuttleworth) is. Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian and is actively developed by 1000's of people all around the world.

2) I would be surprised if more than 1 or 2 GIMP developers were paid TO DEVELOP GIMP. Point is that they are certainly NOT paid by YOU or @FeyFre.

3) Very few open source projects supply binaries. A few do for Windows as it's quite hard for those people to actually get a proper build environment (eg compilers) without paying more money. But for the Unixes (linux,*bsd etc) we can get that for no extra cost. And there are so many different distributions, each with their own peculiar setups and package systems (eg rpm, deb, tgz) that it would be very hard to satisfy all. That's where the distribution maintainers come in.

4) I am an "open sourcist", if such a thing existed ! I am by virtue of the fact that I understand exactly where this stuff comes from. It comes from the generosity of a few skilled people. There is an old saying, you may have a version of it too - "Never look a gift horse in the mouth". If you got it (software) for nothing (you paid no money to the developer) then please don't complain about the form that the software takes. You might have to panel-beat a bit yourself, or if you are patient, wait for (another) kind soul to do it for you.