I've compiled libexif-0.6.10, which is required for gimp2. The old version was 5.12-27. It compiles, goes through checkinstall and rpm fine. However, apt-get is having trouble because a lot of packages depend on libexif.so.9. The new package provides libexif.so.10. I haven't stumbled on a way to satisfy this yet. I've tried specifying everything I can think of in the checkinstall parameters. The checkinstall doc's are pretty light in this area. Any help? Thanks, -- Jim Sabatke Hire Me!! - See my resume at http://my.execpc.com/~jsabatke Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. NOTE: Please do not email me any attachments with Microsoft extensions. They are deleted on my ISP's server before I ever see them, and no bounce message is sent.
Jim Sabatke wrote:
I've compiled libexif-0.6.10, which is required for gimp2. The old version was 5.12-27. It compiles, goes through checkinstall and rpm fine. However, apt-get is having trouble because a lot of packages depend on libexif.so.9. The new package provides libexif.so.10.
I have been there on 8.2. I updated libexif which caused a lot of dependency problems. You will either need to do a lot of rebuilding/recompiling to bring your system to a consistent state, or see if you can compile gimp2 with the original libexif. If that isn't possible, then you got your work cut out for you.
I haven't stumbled on a way to satisfy this yet. I've tried specifying everything I can think of in the checkinstall parameters.
I don't think checkinstall will let you accomplish what is needed here. One possibility is to tweak the libexif spec file to provide libexif.so.9 as well as 10, make a symlink, and see. Seems I tried this and it didn't work, but my memory is bad. I ended up recompiling everything with the new libexif installed to correct the dependency problems. HTH. -- Joe Morris New Tribes Mission Email Address: Joe_Morris@ntm.org Registered Linux user 231871
Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
Jim Sabatke wrote:
I've compiled libexif-0.6.10, which is required for gimp2. The old version was 5.12-27. It compiles, goes through checkinstall and rpm fine. However, apt-get is having trouble because a lot of packages depend on libexif.so.9. The new package provides libexif.so.10.
<snip>
I don't think checkinstall will let you accomplish what is needed here. One possibility is to tweak the libexif spec file to provide libexif.so.9 as well as 10, make a symlink, and see. Seems I tried this and it didn't work, but my memory is bad. I ended up recompiling everything with the new libexif installed to correct the dependency problems. HTH.
The problem isn't with gimp2. I've had that working for some time, including the libexif parts. This is partly a problem following a YOU update. Yast had complained that apache, and other programs, needed an updated libapr0. I tried to get the lib with apt-get, and it choked on libexif (it also did report that libapr0 was needed). AFAIK, the only way to get apt-get to stop complaining is to let it delete the programs, which I don't want to do; they are working after all. So I googled libapr0, found it on a SuSE site, downloaded and installed it. YaST was happy; apt-get was happy with libapr0, but not libexif. BTW, I couldn't find libapr0 on YOU. This should be fixed, as dependencies should be considered with updates. Thanks for your help. -- Jim Sabatke Hire Me!! - See my resume at http://my.execpc.com/~jsabatke Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. NOTE: Please do not email me any attachments with Microsoft extensions. They are deleted on my ISP's server before I ever see them, and no bounce message is sent.
participants (2)
-
Jim Sabatke
-
Joe Morris (NTM)