| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catgate
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 901
Location: Just over there, in that corner.
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:16 pm Post subject: My bête noire.....Gimp |
 |
|
I feel there must be some logical reason for the following, but it continues to elude me.
I am still running Ubuntu 10.04 on my main machine. The version of Gimp I am running is 2.7.2 according to the "About" screen. However on Synaptic Package Manager it is shown as 2.7.3.
I have just done a remove and a reinstall to no avail. Do I have to shake a six before I can PASS GO?
_________________
Oh, sod it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MartyBartfast
LXF regular
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:25 am
Posts: 780
Location: Hants, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dunno about Ubuntu, but on my fedora box gimp points to /usr/bin/gimp, which is itself a symlink to /usr/bin/gimp-2.8. So in your case it could be that you've got 2.7.2 dangling around from a previous installation and gimp is symlinked to it, even though you've installed 2.7.3 via synaptic.
So I would drop to a console and do:
$ which gimp
then do an ls -ld of the folder where that's pointing and see whether there are multiple versions there, and whether gimp is symlinked to the wrong one.
If that is the case it's probably just a case of repointing the symlink and then deleting the old image.
_________________
I have been touched by his noodly appendage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nelz
Moderator
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8002
Location: Warrington, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't this come up a few weeks ago? It appears to be a packaging glitch.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catgate
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 901
Location: Just over there, in that corner.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MartyBartfast wrote: |
So I would drop to a console and do:
$ which gimp
|
I get
/usr/bin/gimp
and therein resides a link to 2.7.2 ( which is what comes up when click the Gimp icon)
When I go on to the Synaptic Package Manager the installed Gimp is shown as 2.7.3. Before I did the remove/reinstall mentioned above it SPM was showning 2.7.2.
[quiote= "nelz"] :-
Didn't this come up a few weeks ago? It appears to be a packaging glitch.
[/quote]
I think you might be right, I'm not sure. I have been playing around with a very sad Gimp for some time now. I think it might have been upset by an update some months ago.
_________________
Oh, sod it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ram
LXF regular
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:44 pm
Posts: 1552
Location: Guisborough
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: My bête noire.....Gimp |
|
|
| catgate wrote: | I feel there must be some logical reason for the following, but it continues to elude me.
I am still running Ubuntu 10.04 on my main machine. The version of Gimp I am running is 2.7.2 according to the "About" screen. However on Synaptic Package Manager it is shown as 2.7.3.
I have just done a remove and a reinstall to no avail. Do I have to shake a six before I can PASS GO? |
So am I and my gimp is listed as 2.6.8 both in Synaptic and the link in /usr/bin and from the About box within gimp.
_________________
Ubuntu LXDE 12.04 running on AMD Phenom II*4; ASUS Crosshair III Formula MB; 4 GB Ram.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catgate
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 901
Location: Just over there, in that corner.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: My bête noire.....Gimp |
|
|
| Ram wrote: |
So am I and my gimp is listed as 2.6.8 both in Synaptic and the link in /usr/bin and from the About box within gimp. |
Before I retired I was Q.A. and Tech. Serv. Manager for a very well known Mulinational. It was a "modern, forward looking company" i.e. it spent enormous time and money (and effort) on "Cost Reduction" and so our Monthly Cost Saving meetings often became a battle ground.
We had a rather weird Industrial Engineering Manager, who had somehow conned his way into the company and had somehow remained, despite his perpetual display of incompetence.
At one of our monthly jamborees he presented one of his "new schemes" (most of them fed to him by his staff, who were smarter than him and who were constantly pulling the wool over his eyes).
I have forgotten what it was all about but it was one of the many times when I was obliged to say, " Sorry, Tony, but I am afraid this is just not acceptable. You are degrading the product and I shall just have to veto the scheme."
His response on this occasion was classic, and I feel it must be applicable to Gimp too.
He said, " Well you must realise that all improvements are not necessarily for the better." !!!!!!!!!!
_________________
Oh, sod it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ram
LXF regular
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:44 pm
Posts: 1552
Location: Guisborough
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:37 pm Post subject: Re: My bête noire.....Gimp |
|
|
| catgate wrote: | | Ram wrote: |
So am I and my gimp is listed as 2.6.8 both in Synaptic and the link in /usr/bin and from the About box within gimp. |
He said, " Well you must realise that all improvements are not necessarily for the better." !!!!!!!!!! |
I couldn't agree more - current bug bear for me is Adobe and Firefox on Windows. Install latest Adobe update and it breaks video play back in Firefox.
In your case I'd assume you have some backport or other none standard repository where gimp as been updated from.
_________________
Ubuntu LXDE 12.04 running on AMD Phenom II*4; ASUS Crosshair III Formula MB; 4 GB Ram.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catgate
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 901
Location: Just over there, in that corner.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: My bête noire.....Gimp |
|
|
| Ram wrote: |
I couldn't agree more - current bug bear for me is Adobe and Firefox on Windows. Install latest Adobe update and it breaks video play back in Firefox.
In your case I'd assume you have some backport or other none standard repository where gimp as been updated from. |
Well, as I keep saying, I'm a Luddite at heart, and instinctively "dislike" any radical change. For me, even "Windows" was just such a thing, just when we had all got used to DOS and mastered Basic. So I try to fiddle about as little as possible and only use S.P.M. and automatic updates (unless the situation is extremely dire). Even the word "backport" has unseemly connotations for we Luddites!!!
_________________
Oh, sod it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nelz
Moderator
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8002
Location: Warrington, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The 2.7 series were public betas, so I'm not sure running one of those appeals to your sensibilities as betas change frequently. 2.8 is the stable release.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catgate
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 901
Location: Just over there, in that corner.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nelz wrote: | | The 2.7 series were public betas, so I'm not sure running one of those appeals to your sensibilities as betas change frequently. 2.8 is the stable release. |
Yes, the "About screen" image (with a mining/pot holing/painting cat) says "This is an unstable development release". Which makes me wonder how, due to my "sensibilities, it found its way in to my system....unless Ubuntu release "unstable developments" as updates or list them in SPM.
_________________
Oh, sod it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nelz
Moderator
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8002
Location: Warrington, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
They do, Ubuntu routinely use bleeding edge versions, it is based on Debian Testing. If you want tried and tested versions with minimal changes, go for Debian Stable.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catgate
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 901
Location: Just over there, in that corner.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nelz wrote: | | They do, Ubuntu routinely use bleeding edge versions, it is based on Debian Testing. If you want tried and tested versions with minimal changes, go for Debian Stable. |
Well I'll be %^& *()%%)" &^ $%^& ed!!!!!! 
So how does this square up with L.T.S. ?
_________________
Oh, sod it.
Last edited by catgate on Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
towy71
Moderator
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4170
Location: wild West Wales
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catgate wrote: | | Well I'll be %^& *()%%)" &^ $%^& ed!!!!!! |
Well yes you are  , there has often been moans about Ubuntu breaking because it uses bleeding edge stuff. Indeed that is why I generally wait a month or two before I upgrade, cos they will have fixed things by then 
_________________
still looking for that door into summer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ram
LXF regular
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:44 pm
Posts: 1552
Location: Guisborough
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just checked my Laptop and it is also running 2.6.8 on Ubuntu 10.04 lts.
_________________
Ubuntu LXDE 12.04 running on AMD Phenom II*4; ASUS Crosshair III Formula MB; 4 GB Ram.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catgate
LXF regular
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 901
Location: Just over there, in that corner.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Over the last week or two I have had several attempts to download Gimp 2.6.xx onto my Ubuntu 10.04 system after "complete removal", by SPM, of my existing abomination rejoicing under the appelation of "Gimp 2.7.2".
Each time, after using various repositories, I always finish up with 2.7.2 back again, despite the fact that to all intents and purposes the item I am supposedly downloading is 2.6.xx.
Surely there must be a way of fishing out of the archives a version of 2.6.xx and popping it onto my machine? Or am I relying on my rose tinted spectacles too much?
_________________
Oh, sod it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
