Slashdot Mirror
Building Gimp 2.0 on Windows XP?
Anonymouse asks: "Has anyone out there just had the urge to build Gimp 2.0 on Windows instead of using an installer made by a third party, hosted on a free web hosting service? It's probably fine but it makes me nervous, so I figure I should try building it on Windows instead...besides, it could be educational! Does anyone have any instructions/suggestions for building the source on Windows XP using MinGW and MinSYS? Keep in mind I have no experience with *nix, and my meek programing skillz only apply to Perl. Thanks!"
I found this site linked from the main Gimp site. It doesn't look too sketchy to me. Why don't you use that?
If you really want to compile from scratch, do it on Linux first with native Linux programs. When you get the hang of that, move to Windows. I'm all for sink-or-swim type trials, but, in this case, I think you'll sink. Very quickly.
Many software shops have dedicated build teams that do nothing more than make sure that the software is rebuilt from source every day. This entails tweaking build scripts, makefiles, and making sure that the proper libraries are available for the compiler and linker.
This is not an easy task, though once set up properly it becomes fairly self-managing.
Since you are coming from Perl where there is nothing to compile, it would probably be best to start by installing Cygwin and gcc and just try compiling a few simple programs first. READ the makefiles. Understanding the makefiles will make understanding the build process much easier.
I have been pwned because my
The GIMP wiki has a full page on building GIMP using MinGW here.
Not something that is worthy of an Ask Slashdot in my opinion, but we're here to help I guess. Also, check out the #gimp channel on irc.gimp.org for some help.
-Tukon
Stating the obvious.
I downgraded to GTK 2.2.4.2 revision C and went back to GIMP 1.25. I'll give GIMP 2.0 another try when GTK+ 2.4.1 is released.
I've built Gaim for Windows before, and I think it would be quite similar to building The Gimp 2.0 since they both use a lot of the same software...
The basic idea is to install cygwin, and use make and python and perl and all that other stuff the build process needs, but replace the compilers and libraries in your path with the ones from mingw.
See here for more info:
Windows Development - gaim
When installing or compiling UNIX apps that have been ported to Windows, especially ones using GTK+, all kinds of crazy things end up happening with confused DLLs. Sometimes Gaim tries to use ActiveState's Perl and that breaks something, or tries to use some of Cygwin's libraries. What we need is something like the LSB that governs how UNIX-compatible environments (Cygwin and MinGW mainly) should work on Windows. That would be a big help to folks like me who must use Windows (No, trolls. I can't use Linux. I have reasons. Go away.) but want to have appilcations and environments that are UNIXey.
samrolken
From their win32 page:
On the other hand, I just downloaded Gaim 0.76 (because I broke the old version when I upgraded GTK for GIMP 2.0)... and the tray icon is working fine, no changes on my part at all.
Hmm. Either way, you should consider another shot.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
There is no `root' in Cygwin. On Windows NT, the NT names are simply translated to a simple uid scheme (don't know about 9x). The names aren't even necessarily POSIX-compliant (eg. spaces are allowed). When the setuid(2) function is called, the DLL returns ENOSYS (not implemented). In short, Cygwin is pretty advanced (I almost got NetBSD cross-built on it one time, and I've been working to maybe get pkgsrc working, but that's another matter) but when it comes to security, well, the abstraction can only be as good as the underlying implementation. If a Windows box has tightened security, *cough*cough*choke*, then some operations may need the Cygwin1.dll run as ``Administrator,'' but default Windows installs give enough privilages to regular users that this is rarely a concern. Basically, programs aren't usually designed to check for `root', but rather for enough permissions to do whatever they need. If a cygwin binary cannot do something, like chdir'ing into an NT-restricted directory, it will just fail. MinGW does the exact same thing, but with no POSIX-esque layers, instead directly calling on msvcX.dll.
As was already said by someone, your school's tech department is run by morons. If they truly wanted security, they wouldn't be running Windows in the first place.
In one sentance: yes, everything in both MinGW and Cygwin is run as a `root'-ish user, but native programs have the exact same set of permissions. Running either is no more a security risk than is running Windows itself.
-Bruce
---------
|\|3+85D: f0r +3h r3a1 133t h4x0r5!!!!!1 Those who know will attest! They will agree! They already use it! They will not use annoying hacker-esque stereotypes!
Good thing there's also a free-as-in-beer version. You can do that sort of thing with free-as-in-speech programs. You can also try to make a profit if you like.
You're *free* to do whatever you like. Isn't that great?
Random and weird software I've written.