Gimp 2.6

  • tCzerny
Posted: Fri, 07/10/2009 - 18:53
I am using 64Studio Vers.2 and would like to get Gimp 2.6. Compiling from source ends in an endless hunt for dependencies, including gtk+ and python issues which eventually screws up your system. Bottom line, I could not make it. I don't want to upgrade to Lenny since everything else works fine and my maxim is 'never change a running system.' Messing around with Gimp via the Synaptic Manager might remove 64Studio. That aspect is the least I understand, some more flexibility might help here. Please advice, Thomas

64 Studio customisation package

  • skullnotions
  • 09/29/07
  • Mon, 07/13/2009 - 08:31
One of the most important requirements of a distro is it's upgrade path. When a new image is released alpha, beta, rc or released version, I run at least two tests. The first is to upgrade a working\used version e.g. "beta3" to the new version. This upgrade is to check the upgrade path on an install that has "history" changes etc.,. Then I'll install a clean "beta3" and go straight into an upgrade to the new release. 64studio need to know the upgrade path is clean. Beta's are for testers to iron out issues and prepare for the upgrade path of the released version to the new released version. The 64studio meta-package keeps the distro pinned to a DAW environment. When you remove 64studio you can make changes to the sound structure without being aware of the changes. If I try to upgrade *foo* package and it's upgrade is going to effect the base configuration you will get the warning "64studio will be removed". To accept this means you will no longer get a warning and you can make even more changes to the base configuration. This is fine if you know what you're doing and have experience in dealing with libraries\dependencies etc., The problem comes later when you want to dist-upgrade to the new released version and the meta-package conflicts with your upgraded packages. At the end of last year I spent months dist-upgrading 2.1 to lenny and 2.1 to hardy. In order to get a "clean upgrade path" I had to remove certain packages, run the dist-upgrade "clean" and then reinstall certain packages. The ones that come to mind with the 2.1 lenny dist-upgrades are qsynth, iceweasel and meterbridge. Search the forum and you'll find examples of these upgrade issues. To understand this we have to look at the development process of GNU\Linux. It started out as a server, moved to a desktop *GUI* and finally we introduce *Sound*. There are clues along the way that show us that sound was the last step in the process. We can't have the latest desktop build because it interferes with the sound structure, so we compromise the desktop in order to have the best sound possible. Once 64studio is removed from 2.1 you are running Debian. *etch*. Cheers! Dave.

"I want to follow the

  • capoeira
  • 05/01/09
  • Sat, 07/11/2009 - 22:18
"I want to follow the natural release path, so the meta-package is vital" i am not understanding why. without the metapackage i will have the same updates, wont i? perhaps somebody explain the advantage of this? i dont have the meta-package and until now i live verry fine with this

64studio meta-package

  • skullnotions
  • 09/29/07
  • Sat, 07/11/2009 - 17:22
Hi Thomas, The commands below will all give you information about the 64studio meta-package. $ apt-cache policy 64studio $ apt-cache show 64studio $ dpkg -s 64studio $ dpkg -S 64studio The last command is showing all the packages tied in to the 64studio-meta-package. You can also see this information using Synaptic Synaptic > right-click on 64studio package > properties > Tab "installed files". This package is used as a version revision\updater. It's the same as ubuntu-desktop, kubuntu-desktop etc., It's always going to keep you pinned to a stable\safe environment until the dev's release the next meta-package which will give you a smooth upgrade to the next version. Examples: 1) I install the 9MB minimal install cd *above* and build myself a desktop from the base up. 2) I install the 9MB minimal install cd *above* and install the meta-package *ubuntu-desktop*. X xorg etc., would also be required. This will pull all the relevant packages to install the released version. Once completed I decide I don't want any e.g. printing software so I mark cups for removal, This, or at some point in the removal process will remove the ubuntu-desktop meta-package. I've used these methods a lot, and it doesn't do any damage to remove the meta-package. It does mean I've made the install more vulnerable to breakage and the more changes I make the less chance I have to fall back to the meta-package. To me this is fine, unless I want to follow the natural upgrade path. I'm not saying you should remove the meta-package. 64studio beta (hardy): There's no way I would remove the 64studio-meta-package here. I want to follow the natural release path, so the meta-package is vital. Cheers! Dave.


  • tCzerny
  • 11/15/08
  • Fri, 07/10/2009 - 18:59
Same is true for Openoffice, have 2.0 while 3 something is out, changing this removes 64Studio?