I am attempting to install libwpd-0.6.6.
The ./configure step results in -

checking for
glib-2.0 >= 2.0.0
libgsf-1 >= 1.6.0
.... Package glib-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path.
Perhaps you should add the directory containing `glib-2.0.pc'
to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
No package 'glib-2.0' found

I am running Redhat 9, and the nearest packages installed, via rpm, are
glib-1.2.10-10.i386.rpm
glib2-2.2.1-1.i386.rpm

Q1. Is glib2 the same as glib version 2?
... or do I need to upgrade glib to version 2, so I would have

glib-2.???? and
glib2-2.2.1-1

Q2. Should I change something in the make files for libwpd so it looks
for glib2-2.2.1-1 and not glib-2.0?

Thanks for any help.

--
Best regards,
David Tangye
Redhat Linux user since 1997
Make sure you remove the 3 syllable spam trap in the reply address

David Tangye wrote:
I don't use redhat any more but they break several packages into
multiple packages so I would check to see if there is a
"glib2-devel" package and install it if you find it.

--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with The Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org/
Slackware 9.1.0 Kernel 2.4.23 SMP i686 (GCC) 3.3.2
Uptime: 14 days, 22:42, 1 user, load average: 1.04, 1.06, 1.07

On 03/01/04 02:31, after an epic battle with a keyboard, David wrote ...
comes with Redhat 9. The old gnome-rpm was much better. Any idea where
to find it?

Redhat 9 does some of the same dumb things Windoze XP does compared to
Windoze 2000, like hide stuff "for our own good". What with their
stopping free version, its time I started thinking of a new distro methinks.

--
Best regards,
David Tangye - Redhat Linux user since 1997
Make sure you remove the 3 syllable spam trap in the reply address

David Tangye wrote:
As I said I don't use redhat but there are glib2-devel RPM's at
rpmfind.net though I would think it would also be on one of the
installation CD's for redhat.

http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/se...submit=Search+...

--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with The Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org/
Slackware 9.1.0 Kernel 2.4.23 SMP i686 (GCC) 3.3.2
Uptime: 15 days, 12:27, 1 user, load average: 0.99, 0.79, 0.58

On 03/01/04 16:16, after an epic battle with a keyboard, David wrote ...
package that I am needing. What is it that I missed in the original
error (FYI repeated below) that should have led me to thing "devel"?

checking for
glib-2.0 >= 2.0.0
libgsf-1 >= 1.6.0
.... Package glib-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path.
Perhaps you should add the directory containing `glib-2.0.pc'
to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
No package 'glib-2.0' found

--
Best regards,
David Tangye - Redhat Linux user since 1997
Reply to GoLinuxTakeThisOut@iprimus.com.au
Make sure you remove the 3 syllable spam trap in the reply address

David Tangye wrote:
Because of the way redhat breaks many a package into multiple
packages like "glib" and "glib-devel" they go over board on
breaking things into multiple packages which is part of the
reason there is such a problem with "RPM Hell". I know there use
to be more than one package that had a "devel" package where the
package can't be installed without the "devel" package and the
"devel" package can't be installed without the pacakge.

You had glib-2.0 or above installed and it wasn't finding it.
That told me that if there was a "glib2-devel" package it was
most likely looking for something in it and you were trying to
compile (develope) a package.

--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with The Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org/
Slackware 9.1.0 Kernel 2.4.23 SMP i686 (GCC) 3.3.2
Uptime: 16 days, 12:57, 1 user, load average: 1.01, 1.22, 1.53

On 04/01/04 16:42, after an epic battle with a keyboard, David wrote ...
That sounds logical, but I am not sufficiently experienced with packages
and compiling to have guessed that with any confidence. I am sure you
are right and will proceed on that basis.

Thanks very much. I am sure you have saved me a good hour or three, and
uncertainty.

--
Best regards,
David Tangye - Redhat Linux user since 1997
Reply to GoLinuxTakeThisOut@iprimus.com.au
Make sure you remove the 3 syllable spam trap in the reply address

In article <3ff65793_1@news.iprimus.com.au>,
David Tangye <GoLinuxTakeThisOut@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
....
Yes, for us hackers, Red Hat is so over.

But I'm curious - what things does XP hide for our own good?
(I'm not saying otherwise - I'm just curious what you have in mind here)
(And also, I do think XP is a joke - what a mess it is)

"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@yin.interaccess.com> schrieb
definitions that the user changes via a program.

But they can be made visible easily.

If you click in Explorer on "WINNT", you'll see an apparently
empty folder and the message:

"This folder contains files, which are necessary for the proper
functioning of the system. The contents should not be modified.
If you want to see the files, click here"

(My translation from German to English).

HTH
Martin

"Martin Blume" <mblume@socha.net> schrieb
Sorry, I have to add that this is Win2000 behaviour.

Martin

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:56:47 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:

Slackware rox !


(ignore the troll)

On 2004-01-17, Johann <qms2@agat.net> wrote:
Yep. Slack is still painfully accessible, yet has a soothing veneer
from where curious newbs can dip a cautious toe.

nb