RE: [glade--]how to install glademm on RHL9

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

1. I don't see the -devel rpm there.
2. Where did you get this libsigc++ rpm? It doesn't look like a fedora.us
one.

Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc usa net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: glademm-list-admin gnome org 
> [mailto:glademm-list-admin gnome org] On Behalf Of Vladislav 
> Grinchenko
> Sent: Freitag, 12. Dezember 2003 17:58
> To: susumu yt com
> Cc: glademm-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: [glade--]how to install glademm on RHL9
> 
> 
> Susumu,
> 
> I user both rh9 and fedora. 
> 
> % rpm -qi libsigc++
> 
> libsigc++-1.2.2-1
> 
> Name        : libsigc++                    Relocations: /usr 
> Version     : 1.2.2                        Vendor: Karl E. 
> Nelson <kenelson ece ucdavis edu>
> Release     : 1                            Build Date: Tue 22 
> Apr 2003 03:15:20 PM EDT
> Install Date: Thu 24 Apr 2003              Build Host: 
> dedalus.3rdshift.com
> Group       : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: 
> libsigc++-1.2.2-1.src.rpm
> Size        : 134498                       License: LGPL
> Signature   : (none)
> Packager    : 
> URL         : http://libsigc.sourceforge.net/
> Summary     : The Typesafe Signal Framework for C++
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:43:48PM +0100, Christof Petig wrote:
> > Susumu Yoshida schrieb:
> > >Thank for your reply again.
> > >I am really sorry that I annoy you with an unfamiliar distribution.
> > 
> > Not that annoying to be sure.
> > 
> > >>If your linux distribution cannot give you automatic dependancy
> > >>resolution (which I clearly doubt, given that RH/fedora still has 
> > >>users), you should consider a decent distribution. 
> Perhaps apt-rpm is 
> > >>the correct solution for you.
> > >
> > >
> > >According to you, I installed apt-rpm and tried again but failed.
> > 
> > Oh, you did not fail. It gave you a decent error message:
> > 
> > >nana:/home/susumu/SRC# apt-get install libsigc++-devel Reading 
> > >Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > >libsigc++-devel is already the newest version.
> > 
> > Perhaps this is libsigc++-1.0 which is the old one for gtkmm1. This 
> > used
> > to be called libsigc++ (without a version number). Or ... I heard 
> > _rumors_ that redhat/fedora had made some debatable 
> decisions to give 
> > incompatible packages the same (but shorter) name. Perhaps 
> sigc++ 1.2 is 
> > called libsigc++, too and you got the wrong one.
> > 
> > >nana:/home/susumu/SRC# apt-get install gtkmm2
> > >Reading Package Lists... Done
> > >Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > >Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have 
> > >requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable 
> > >distribution that some required packages have not yet been 
> created or 
> > >been moved out of Incoming.
> > >
> > >Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely 
> > >that the package is simply not installable and a bug 
> report against 
> > >that package should be filed. The following information 
> may help to 
> > >resolve the situation:
> > >
> > >The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > >  gtkmm2: Depends: libsigc-1.2.so.5
> > >E: Broken packages
> > 
> > >See? The newest version of both libsigc++ and libsigc++-devel are 
> > >already installed on my machine but when I try to "apt-get install 
> > >gtkmm2", it says "libsigc-1.2 is UNMET". Does it make sense?
> > 
> > Yes. Somewhat. It looks like you mixed packages from different
> > incompatible sources. Or apt-rpm can not live to its 
> expectations ;-)
> > 
> > >
> > >You say
> > >
> > >
> > >>Shocked and glad to not _had_ to compile gtkmm myself for several 
> > >>years
> > >
> > >
> > >but is it much easier to use gtkmm on Debian (which is
> > > your distribution,right?) ?
> > 
> > Debian is my distribution and while it has different issues 
> (sometimes
> > transitions take a long time which is mostly due to 
> decisions of the 
> > people involved or lack of maintainer's spare time) I grew 
> really fond 
> > of its package management.
> > 
> > The gnome 2.4 situation in sid (unstable) is really good. Sarge
> > (testing) is slowly getting there and woody (stable) is 
> hopelessly frozen.
> > 
> > But fedora should not be a bad choice either (from what I 
> have heard).
> > 
> >    Christof
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > glademm-list mailing list
> > glademm-list gnome org 
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/glademm-list
> 
> -- 
> ______________________________________________________
> Vladislav Grinchenko    e-mail (w): vgrinche integ com
> Software Engineer            (h): 3rdshift comcast net
> Integral Systems, Inc.
> 
>    Focus on quality, and productivity will follow. 
> ______________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> glademm-list mailing list
> glademm-list gnome org 
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/glad> emm-list
>