Hey, what's the easiest way to set your forground color to 50% gray? 
I've been clicking it and setting the RGB values to 127.  It works well, 
but is there an easier (quicker) way?

Thanks.
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Humor in the Court:
Q: Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was
    a victim?

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Mark Adams wrote:
> Hey, what's the easiest way to set your forground color to 50% gray? 
> I've been clicking it and setting the RGB values to 127.  It works well, 
> but is there an easier (quicker) way?

Umm, I should mention that I'm setting those RGB values by sliding the 
V(alue) slider to "50".  Which I admit is pretty fast, but I'm one lazy sod.

-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Keep cool, but don't freeze.
		-- Hellman's Mayonnaise

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Mark Adams <madams9@netscape.dotnet>, you wrote on Wed, 21 Apr 2004
15:49:01 -0600:

>Hey, what's the easiest way to set your forground color to 50% gray? 
>I've been clicking it and setting the RGB values to 127.  It works well, 
>but is there an easier (quicker) way?

In GIMP 2.0, once you have set a colour, you can copy it to some sort
of palette. I don't know if you can make this palette somehow survive
sessions, but during sessions it is already very handy. Set 50% grey
once, use every time.

-- 
branko collin
- dr: "have you been exposed to any user interfaces designed by engineers?"
- woman: "yes"
- dr: "you have interface poisoning. you'll be dead within a week" (scott adams, dilbert)

Hi,

In article <6rtd805jcskuco5770d04crsmqbbfna0le@4ax.com>, Branko Collin wrote:
> In GIMP 2.0, once you have set a colour, you can copy it to some sort
> of palette. I don't know if you can make this palette somehow survive
> sessions, but during sessions it is already very handy. Set 50% grey
> once, use every time.

The little black arrow beside "Current" saves your colour in the colour 
selector - it has slots for 16 colours. As you said, there are also 
palettes, which are saved across sessions, of course. Setting a colour in 
a palette entry is as simple as double-clicking on the palette entry in 
question to bringup the colour picker, and then picking the required 
colour. That seems messier to me though...

Cheers,
Dave.

Dave Neary wrote:
> 
> The little black arrow beside "Current" saves your colour in the colour 
> selector - it has slots for 16 colours. As you said, there are also 
> palettes, which are saved across sessions, of course. Setting a colour in 
> a palette entry is as simple as double-clicking on the palette entry in 
> question to bringup the colour picker, and then picking the required 
> colour. That seems messier to me though...
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave.
> 

I'm afraid you lost me there Dave.  What you describe sounds familiar, 
but how do I navigate to the "colour selector"?

Thanks.
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

You have a will that can be influenced by all with whom you come in contact.

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Hi,

In article <108g2hlbocrvr04@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Adams wrote:
> I'm afraid you lost me there Dave.  What you describe sounds familiar, 
> but how do I navigate to the "colour selector"?

Double-click on any colour, in a palette or the active FG/BG. It's the 
dialog in which you are moving the V slider to 50%.

Cheers,
Dave.

Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In article <108g2hlbocrvr04@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Adams wrote:
> 
>>I'm afraid you lost me there Dave.  What you describe sounds familiar, 
>>but how do I navigate to the "colour selector"?
> 
> 
> Double-click on any colour, in a palette or the active FG/BG. It's the 
> dialog in which you are moving the V slider to 50%.
> 

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought.  There is no place to save a 
palette of colors and there is no little black arrow because there is no 
"Current".

What version of Gimp are you looking at?  I'm working on 1.2.5.  I've 
had exactly zero luck installing 2.0.

Thanks.
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide.
		-- Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Mark Adams <madams9@netscape.dotnet> writes:

> Dave Neary wrote:

> > Double-click on any colour, in a palette or the active FG/BG. It's
> > the dialog in which you are moving the V slider to 50%.
> >
> 
> Yeah, that's kind of what I thought.  There is no place to save a
> palette of colors and there is no little black arrow because there is
> no "Current".
> 
> What version of Gimp are you looking at?  I'm working on 1.2.5.  I've
> had exactly zero luck installing 2.0.

The features decribed here are in 2.0. So what was the zero luck you
had with installing GIMP 2.0?


Michael

-- 
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org    | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp
Sodipodi > http://sodipodi.sf.net | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/sodipodi

Michael Schumacher wrote:
> Mark Adams <madams9@netscape.dotnet> writes:
> 
>>What version of Gimp are you looking at?  I'm working on 1.2.5.  I've
>>had exactly zero luck installing 2.0.
> 
> 
> The features decribed here are in 2.0. So what was the zero luck you
> had with installing GIMP 2.0?
> 
> 
> Michael
> 

Here, I'll give you the whole kit-n-kaboodle from the Mandrake support 
newsgroup:

And I quote===========================

I'm trying to upgrade Gimp 1.2.5 on my Mdk 9.2 box to Gimp 2.0.  I'm 
having a devil of a time getting 2.0 to install.  I'm working from info 
at http://www.gimp.org/unix/, and have installed up to GTK+ 2.2.2.  I've 
tried to use the rpm's but have not been successful, so it's down to the 
tarballs.

The error I"m getting when "./configure"-ing GTK+ 2.2.2 is:
===========
checking for GLIB - version >= 2.1.4...
*** 'pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.2, but GLIB (2.2.3)
*** was found! If pkg-config was correct, then it is best
*** to remove the old version of GLib. You may also be able to fix the error
*** by modifying your LD_LIBRARY_PATH enviroment variable, or by editing
*** /etc/ld.so.conf. Make sure you have run ldconfig if that is
*** required on your system.
*** If pkg-config was wrong, set the environment variable PKG_CONFIG_PATH
*** to point to the correct configuration files
no
configure: error:
*** GLIB 2.1.4 or better is required. The latest version of
*** GLIB is always available from ftp://ftp.gtk.org/.
============

I have the sense that I'm missing something simple here, but I can't 
find any -devel packages for these things and URPMI happily reports that 
everything is already installed.  I am a wee bit lost when it comes to 
changing my path, but I did execute
"export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/local/lib/pkgconfig" to eliminate an 
earlier error.

I have no recollection, nor can I find any evidence of ever installing 
GLIB 2.2.3.

Any help?


-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Hi,

In article <108jchcgi12jac1@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Adams wrote:
> checking for GLIB - version >= 2.1.4...
> *** 'pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0' returned 2.2.2, but GLIB 
(2.2.3)
> *** was found!

> but I did execute
> "export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/local/lib/pkgconfig" to eliminate an 
> earlier error.

What earlier error? It looks very likely that you have glib installed 
twice (in /usr/local and again in /usr).

The file pkgconfig is finding is /usr/local/lib/pkgconfig/glib-2.0.pkg 
and in there the version is probably 2.2.2.

However, either the libraries you have installed or the GLIB headers 
are 
being taken from /usr/lib/glib-2.0 or /usr/include/glib-2.0 
respectively, 
which is why you're having trouble.

> I have no recollection, nor can I find any evidence of ever 
installing 
> GLIB 2.2.3.

Hmmm... you could try simply installing the gtk+-devel RPMs and 
unsetting PKG_CONFIG_PATH. Alternatively, you're going to have to hunt 
down & kill that spare glib.

Here's rough instructions on how to do that (more or less what 
configure does, by the way)...

Run the following: 
pkg-config --modversion glib-2.0

and note the result (should be 2.2.3 from what you said before)

Copy the following to a file called glibtest.c:

==== glib_test.c ========
#include <glib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
                                                                                
int
main ()
{
  if ((glib_major_version != 2) ||
      (glib_minor_version != 2) ||
      (glib_micro_version != 3))
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "Installed and detected versions of glib do not " 
                "agree.\nRun 'ldd ./glibtest' to see where the glib "
                "libraries are found.\n");
    }
    return 0;
}
=======================

The 2, 2 and 3 in the version test should be exactly the same as you saw 
when you ran pkgconfig --modversion earlier.

Now run this
gcc `pkg-config --cflags --libs glib-2.0` -o glibtest ./glibtest.c

This should compile clean.

And now run glibtest.

When I run it, I get no output, and 'echo $?' gives me 0.

In addition, when I run 'ldd glibtest' I get the following:
[david@charon gimp-2.0]$ ldd glibtest
        libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x40027000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x42000000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

which shows me that I am loading libglib from /usr/lib.

If the result is otherwise, you're loading a glib from /usr for a 
pkgconfig in /usr/local - the quick fix is to add /usr/local/lib 
before /usr/lib in /etc/ld.so.conf, and rerun /sbin/ldconfig as root. 
The better fix is to remove the glib in /usr/local and upgrade the one 
in /usr to 2.2.3 or 2.2.4.

Hope this helps,
Dave.

Dave Neary wrote:

<snip lots of good stuff here>

> 
> In addition, when I run 'ldd glibtest' I get the following:
> [david@charon gimp-2.0]$ ldd glibtest
>         libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x40027000)
>         libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x42000000)
>         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
> 
> which shows me that I am loading libglib from /usr/lib.
> 
> If the result is otherwise, you're loading a glib from /usr for a 
> pkgconfig in /usr/local - the quick fix is to add /usr/local/lib 
> before /usr/lib in /etc/ld.so.conf, and rerun /sbin/ldconfig as root. 
> The better fix is to remove the glib in /usr/local and upgrade the one 
> in /usr to 2.2.3 or 2.2.4.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Dave.

Actually, that did help. It eliminated the complaints about Glib 
totally.  Now it can't find the tiff libraries:

====================
checking for X11/Xmu/WinUtil.h... yes
checking for TIFFReadScanline in -ltiff... no
checking for TIFFWriteScanline in -ltiff... no
checking for TIFFFlushData in -ltiff34... no
configure: WARNING: *** TIFF plug-in will not be built (TIFF library not 
found) ***
configure: error:
*** Checks for TIFF libary failed. You can build without it by passing
*** --without-libtiff to configure but you won't be able to use TIFFs then.
=============================

I'm looking for libtiff, but Mandrake says everything is already 
installed. <sigh>  I could just compile without it, but tiff is my 
favorite format for scanned images.

I'll keep futsing around, but if you think of any quick way to fix this 
one, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks mucho for the help with Glib.
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Time and tide wait for no man.

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Okay, this makes no sense to me and I'm getting disgusted here:

[root@adamsmdk downloads]# urpmi gimp2_0-2.0.0-2mdk.i586.rpm
Some package requested cannot be installed:
gimp-2.0.0-4tex.i586 (trying to promote perl(Gimp))
gimp-2.0.0-richard.1mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied devel(libXinerama))
gimp-perl-1.2.3-28676cl.i386 (due to unsatisfied perl-modules)
gimp2_0-2.0.0-2mdk.i586 (due to missing gimp-2.0.0-4tex.i586)
libxfree86-devel-4.3-30mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied XFree86-libs[== 
4.3-30mdk]) (Y/n)

===============
I'll annotate to clarify my frustration.  I have downloaded a number of 
rpm packages in my attempt to get this thing installed.  The directory 
containing these packages is in my urpmi media, hence, the references to 
them above.  The important package is "gimp2_0-2.0.0-2mdk.i586" as you 
can see from the command line that started all this.  Press "Enter" and 
continue...
===============

The following packages have to be removed for others to be upgraded:
gimp-1.2.5-6mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied libgimp1.2 == 1.2.5-6mdk)
gimp-data-extras-1.2.0-7mdk.noarch (due to missing gimp)
gimp-doc-1.2.5-6mdk.i586 (due to missing perl(Gimp), due to unsatisfied 
gimp-perl == 1.2.5-6mdk)
gimp-perl-1.2.5-6mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied gimp == 1.2.5-6mdk)
gimpprint-4.2.5-30mdk.i586 (due to missing gimp)
kdevelop-2.1.5-16mdk.i586 (due to missing gimp[*])
xpcd-gimp-2.08-19mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied gimp >= 1.2) (y/N)

========================

What is this piece above trying to tell me?  My version of gimp IS 
1.2.5.  When I try to install gimp-1.2.5-6rpm.i586.rpm, I am told 
everything is already installed:
========================
[root@adamsmdk downloads]# urpmi gimp-1.2.5-6mdk.i586
medium "contrib" uses an invalid list file:
   mirror is probably not up-to-date, trying to use alternate method
Everything already installed

Frustrated.
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

I hear the sound that the machines make, and feel my heart break, just
for a moment.

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Mark Adams wrote:

> Okay, this makes no sense to me and I'm getting disgusted here:

[snip]

Mark, rebuild your RPM database. Use the command "rpm --rebuilddb" as this may
straighten out for the system what is installed and what isn't.

Fred

-- 
Definition of Terror: A female Klingon with PMS.

Fred A. Miller wrote:
> Mark, rebuild your RPM database. Use the command "rpm --rebuilddb" as this may
> straighten out for the system what is installed and what isn't.
> 
> Fred
> 

Thanks Fred, But that seemed to make no difference at all.

Has anybody successfully upgraded gimp to version 2 under Mdk 9.2?
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

You will be honored for contributing your time and skill to a worthy cause.

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

On 2004-05-06, Mark Adams <madams9@netscape.dotnet> wrote:
> Fred A. Miller wrote:
>> Mark, rebuild your RPM database. Use the command "rpm --rebuilddb" as this may
>> straighten out for the system what is installed and what isn't.
>> 
>> Fred
>> 
>
> Thanks Fred, But that seemed to make no difference at all.
>
> Has anybody successfully upgraded gimp to version 2 under Mdk 9.2?

I don't have Mdk 9.2; I have Slackware 9.1, but maybe I can help.  Have
you tried compiling it from source yet?

ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v2.0/gimp-2.0.1.tar.gz

Just tar -xvzf gimp-2.0.1.tar.gz, enter the directory created and read
the notes.  It's been a while since I compiled gimp, but if it's like most
programs you can just do ./configure from inside the gimp-2.0.1
directory and then do make.  If it compiles successfully, you can change to
root and type make install.

Naota
-- 
naSota@tPampabay.rAr.cMom - > (remove 'S P A M')

Naota Hashimoto wrote:
> 
> I don't have Mdk 9.2; I have Slackware 9.1, but maybe I can help.  Have
> you tried compiling it from source yet?
> 
> ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v2.0/gimp-2.0.1.tar.gz
> 
> Just tar -xvzf gimp-2.0.1.tar.gz, enter the directory created and read
> the notes.  It's been a while since I compiled gimp, but if it's like most
> programs you can just do ./configure from inside the gimp-2.0.1
> directory and then do make.  If it compiles successfully, you can change to
> root and type make install.
> 
> Naota

That's one of the things I've tried.  I initially had problems with 
Glib, but Dave helped me cull that out.  Now it can't find a suitable 
libtiff, or when configured with "--without-libtiff" I get complaints 
about gimp-print and it won't even try to make or install:

============================
checking for GIMP-PRINT - version >= 4.2.0... no
*** The gimpprint-config script installed by GIMP-PRINT could not be found
*** If GIMP-PRINT was installed in PREFIX, make sure PREFIX/bin is in
*** your path, or set the GIMPPRINT_CONFIG environment variable to the
*** full path to gimpprint-config.
configure: error:
*** Check for libgimpprint failed. You can download it from
*** http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ or you can build without it by 
passing
*** --disable-print to configure (but you won't be able to print then).
[root@adamsmdk gimp-2.0.1]# make install
make: Nothing to be done for `install'.
[root@adamsmdk gimp-2.0.1]# make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.
=============================

Gimp 1.2.5 works just fine, but version 2.0 looks so much better.  I'm 
really frustrated with the whole distro about this. The rpm's are not 
any better:

==============
[root@adamsmdk downloads]# urpmi gimp2_0
Some package requested cannot be installed:
gimp-2.0.0-4tex.i586 (trying to promote libgimp1.2)
gimp-2.0.0-richard.1mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied devel(libXinerama))
gimp2_0-2.0.0-2mdk.i586 (due to missing gimp-2.0.0-4tex.i586)
libxfree86-devel-4.3-30mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied XFree86-libs[== 
4.3-30mdk]) (Y/n) y
The following packages have to be removed for others to be upgraded:
gimp-doc-1.2.5-6mdk.i586 (due to missing perl(Gimp), due to unsatisfied 
gimp-perl == 1.2.5-6mdk)
gimp-perl-1.2.5-6mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied gimp == 1.2.5-6mdk) (y/N)
[root@adamsmdk downloads]#=======
====================

I don't know.

Thanks anyway.
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

She been married so many times she got rice marks all over her face.
		-- Tom Waits

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

On 2004-05-07, Mark Adams <madams9@netscape.dotnet> wrote:
> Naota Hashimoto wrote:
>> 
>> I don't have Mdk 9.2; I have Slackware 9.1, but maybe I can help.  Have
>> you tried compiling it from source yet?
>> 
>> ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v2.0/gimp-2.0.1.tar.gz
>> 
>> Just tar -xvzf gimp-2.0.1.tar.gz, enter the directory created and read
>> the notes.  It's been a while since I compiled gimp, but if it's like most
>> programs you can just do ./configure from inside the gimp-2.0.1
>> directory and then do make.  If it compiles successfully, you can change to
>> root and type make install.
>> 
>> Naota
>
> That's one of the things I've tried.  I initially had problems with 
> Glib, but Dave helped me cull that out.  Now it can't find a suitable 
> libtiff, or when configured with "--without-libtiff" I get complaints 
> about gimp-print and it won't even try to make or install:
>
>============================
> checking for GIMP-PRINT - version >= 4.2.0... no
> *** The gimpprint-config script installed by GIMP-PRINT could not be found
> *** If GIMP-PRINT was installed in PREFIX, make sure PREFIX/bin is in
> *** your path, or set the GIMPPRINT_CONFIG environment variable to the
> *** full path to gimpprint-config.
> configure: error:
> *** Check for libgimpprint failed. You can download it from
> *** http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ or you can build without it by 
> passing
> *** --disable-print to configure (but you won't be able to print then).
> [root@adamsmdk gimp-2.0.1]# make install
> make: Nothing to be done for `install'.
> [root@adamsmdk gimp-2.0.1]# make
> make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.
>=============================
>
> Gimp 1.2.5 works just fine, but version 2.0 looks so much better.  I'm 
> really frustrated with the whole distro about this. The rpm's are not 
> any better:
>
>==============
> [root@adamsmdk downloads]# urpmi gimp2_0
> Some package requested cannot be installed:
> gimp-2.0.0-4tex.i586 (trying to promote libgimp1.2)
> gimp-2.0.0-richard.1mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied devel(libXinerama))
> gimp2_0-2.0.0-2mdk.i586 (due to missing gimp-2.0.0-4tex.i586)
> libxfree86-devel-4.3-30mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied XFree86-libs[== 
> 4.3-30mdk]) (Y/n) y
> The following packages have to be removed for others to be upgraded:
> gimp-doc-1.2.5-6mdk.i586 (due to missing perl(Gimp), due to unsatisfied 
> gimp-perl == 1.2.5-6mdk)
> gimp-perl-1.2.5-6mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied gimp == 1.2.5-6mdk) (y/N)
> [root@adamsmdk downloads]#=======

In your situation, I'd try forcing a botched installation, and see what happens
when you execute gimp.  It will most likely fail, giving you a reason.  Then
all you have to do is search your system for whatever gimp can't find, and put
it in the right directory or if your system doesn't have what gimp wants,
you download it.  It sounds stupid, but it could work out.  When I force
something to install that won't install via rpm or source, I use rpm2tgz:

rpm2tgz gimp.rpm

Then as root do installpkg gimp.tgz.  You'll probably have to download rpm2tgz
and installpkg.  Probably pkgtool, too.  I'm reaching in the dark here, but
that could be successful.

Naota
-- 
naSota@tPampabay.rAr.cMom - > (remove 'S P A M')

Hi,

On Wed, 05 May 2004 17:59:10 -0600, Mark Adams said:
> Actually, that did help. It eliminated the complaints about Glib 

Great :) I hope someone's keeping a log so we can put this stuff in a
web page.

> totally.  Now it can't find the tiff libraries:

Have you made sure the headers are installed? They're usually in a
package ending in -devel. Also, check that libtiff.so is in /usr/lib
If not, try rpm -qa libtiff (perhaps that's tiff in mandrake) and rpm
-qa tiff-devel (also, rpm -ql lists the files that are installed by the
RPM, this may enlighten you).

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
                David Neary,
        E-Mail: bolsh at gimp dot org
   Work e-mail: d dot neary at phenix dot fr
CV: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~bolsh/CV/CV.html

Hi (again),

On Thu, 06 May 2004 21:33:59 -0600, Mark Adams said:
> Now it can't find a suitable 
> libtiff, or when configured with "--without-libtiff" I get complaints 
> about gimp-print and it won't even try to make or install:

You either need gimp-print 4.2.x (including devel packages) 
installed (4.2.6 reccommended) or you need to build with 
--disable-print. Since I have no printer, I usually do that.

> [root@adamsmdk gimp-2.0.1]# make install
> make: Nothing to be done for `install'.
> [root@adamsmdk gimp-2.0.1]# make
> make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.

This is normal, the makefiles are generated at the end of the configure.
If you don't get to the end, you don't get makefiles :)

> Gimp 1.2.5 works just fine, but version 2.0 looks so much better.  I'm 
> really frustrated with the whole distro about this. The rpm's are not 
> any better:

The problem is that the GIMP 2.0 requires some pretty new libraries
(GTK+ >= 2.2.2, Xft 2.something, which in turn requires a bunch of the
freedesktop.org X related libraries like Xrender) which aren't in mdk
9.1, so you end up with recurseive RPM upgrade hell. Also, you are going
to get contrib rpms, since gimp 2.0 is not even supported for mandrake
10, but it will be included in 10.1 in June or July.

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
                David Neary,
        E-Mail: bolsh at gimp dot org
   Work e-mail: d dot neary at phenix dot fr
CV: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~bolsh/CV/CV.html

Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 05 May 2004 17:59:10 -0600, Mark Adams said:
> 
>>Actually, that did help. It eliminated the complaints about Glib 
> 
> 
> Great :) I hope someone's keeping a log so we can put this stuff in a
> web page.

I post stuff with the idea that I can Google for it later when I upgrade 
carelessly and, oh say, my smtp mailer goes ka-boom.   But a web page 
would be cool....

> 
>>totally.  Now it can't find the tiff libraries:
> 
> 
> Have you made sure the headers are installed? They're usually in a
> package ending in -devel. Also, check that libtiff.so is in /usr/lib
> If not, try rpm -qa libtiff (perhaps that's tiff in mandrake) and rpm
> -qa tiff-devel (also, rpm -ql lists the files that are installed by the
> RPM, this may enlighten you).
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave.
> 
I installed (urpmi) tiff-devel, but I amnot making any headway. The 
problem seems reflected in information you posted below (see, 
"dependency hell").
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Remember -- only 10% of anything can be in the top 10%.

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi (again),
> 
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 21:33:59 -0600, Mark Adams said:
> 
>>Now it can't find a suitable 
>>libtiff, or when configured with "--without-libtiff" I get complaints 
>>about gimp-print and it won't even try to make or install:
> 
> 
> You either need gimp-print 4.2.x (including devel packages) 
> installed (4.2.6 reccommended) or you need to build with 
> --disable-print. Since I have no printer, I usually do that.

Okay, rather than step out onto my front porch and pitch this whole mess 
into the desert, I installed lib-tif and built this biatch from source 
with the --without-print option.  I ./configure-ed it, then invoked "make".

Forty five minutes later I did "make install" and it came together 
nicely.  I've spent the past twenty minutes since then looking for the 
Colormap Rotation command.  Generally, I am pleased with the new look. 
Except for the fact that, of course, I can't find anything. Yet, anyway.

It seems intact, but is there any source for WMF libs, or is that 
proprietary to Windows?

> 
>>[root@adamsmdk gimp-2.0.1]# make install
>>make: Nothing to be done for `install'.
>>[root@adamsmdk gimp-2.0.1]# make
>>make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.
> 
> 
> This is normal, the makefiles are generated at the end of the configure.
> If you don't get to the end, you don't get makefiles :)
> 
> 
>>Gimp 1.2.5 works just fine, but version 2.0 looks so much better.  I'm 
>>really frustrated with the whole distro about this. The rpm's are not 
>>any better:
> 
> 
> The problem is that the GIMP 2.0 requires some pretty new libraries
> (GTK+ >= 2.2.2, Xft 2.something, which in turn requires a bunch of the
> freedesktop.org X related libraries like Xrender) which aren't in mdk
> 9.1, so you end up with recurseive RPM upgrade hell. Also, you are going
> to get contrib rpms, since gimp 2.0 is not even supported for mandrake
> 10, but it will be included in 10.1 in June or July.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave.
> 

I'm sure I'll upgrade to ver. 10 but I am not an early adopter of these 
things.

Thanks for all your help with this.  You were patient and knowledgable. 
  Take $40 out of petty cash and the rest of the day off.
-- 
Mark E. Adams, 2004 -- drop the "dot" to email me.

CONSIDER: ===========---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

There's one consolation about matrimony.  When you look around you can
always see somebody who did worse.
		-- Warren H. Goldsmith

=====================---------,,,,,,,,,............. . .  .  .   .

Hi,

On Fri, 07 May 2004 19:07:26 -0600, Mark Adams said:
> Okay, rather than step out onto my front porch and pitch this whole mess 
> into the desert, I installed lib-tif and built this biatch from source 
> with the --without-print option.

Congrats on the perseverance :) 

> I've spent the past twenty minutes since then looking for the 
> Colormap Rotation command.

Filters->Colors->Map->Colormap Rotation

> It seems intact, but is there any source for WMF libs, or is that 
> proprietary to Windows?

If you have libwmf (plus devel files) installed, you should get a wmf
plug-in built. But of course, the result when imported won't be
vectorial.

> Thanks for all your help with this.  You were patient and knowledgable. 
>   Take $40 out of petty cash and the rest of the day off.

Thanks :) You can send those $40 to the GNOME foundation (see
http://www.gnome.org/friends) with a cover note saying it's for the GIMP
;-)

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
                David Neary,
        E-Mail: bolsh at gimp dot org
   Work e-mail: d dot neary at phenix dot fr
CV: http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~bolsh/CV/CV.html