How to get source for and build libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
Hello!
First of all... Inkscape is a fantastic product. I'm a very enthusiastic user. I just got quite frustrated in my efforts to get the latest version working for me... so my apologies for being a bit... harsh in the text below. (um... and very long in my writing)
I downloaded the inkscape-0.42.2-1.static.i686.rpm from the Inkscape download section. The RPM installed successfully (did not complain that there were any missing prerequisites). After the install "rpm -q inkscape" returned "inkscape-0.42.2-0".
When I try to run inkscape I get the following message:
inkscape: error while loading shared libraries: libpangocairo-1.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
I did a "find" on the harddrive and yes, there were indeed no libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 anywhere (not even any file with the string "pangocairo" in it).
I see two problems with this: if there were necessary software missing, why did the RPM successfully install without telling me to install other required software? Obviously, there is some other RPM I need to install (or already installed which needs to be update) or some software I need to download the source for and build, and the RPM package shoud really have refused to install in the first place.
Second problem: I decided to download the source for this libpangocairo library, only to find that it has no home page and even using Google in all possible ways, I still don't find any sensible "home page" from which I can download this. I downloaded and built both "cairo-1.0.2.tar.gz" (untar, ./configure, make, make install etc) and successfully built it and as well as the "pycairo-1.0.2.tar.gz" (untar etc etc). Still there is no libpangocairo available. And as I cannot find the homepage for this libpangocairo thing, I cannot find a safe source for any precompiled RPMs either.
(oh my God... after reviewing I realized how long the next set of paragraphs became... and how much it sounds like criticsm... :-( )
Inkscape usability is of course an important aspect and it is good it is being worked on, but between the 0.41 and 0.42 I feel that Inkscape has made a major dip in another critical aspect namely "Inkscape installability". Suddenly there is a requirement for odd libraries for Inkscape to successfully install, libraries I cannot get hold of. I understand that in order for Inscape to be a high quality product, there is a need to base it on modern software libraries. However, I find it troubling that Inkscape seem to rely on software libraries which are so cutting edge that one has to almost break ones machine in order to build/install Inkscape. Is inkscape in each and every required library dependent on features that do not exist in earlier versions of the libraries? If it is, then there is no choice than letting Inkscape RPMs and builds have those (IMHO draconian) installation/build requisites. However, if Inkscape would work fine with the set of features (and yes, set of bugs) found in some less modern (but more easily to get installed) versions of the software libraries it depends on, then going for requiring the modern versions locks out a lot of users who run on Linux installations on which it is difficult to install those modern versions of Inkscape. Users who is not THAT savvy on hunting down, downloading and installing 10+ pieces of software (RPM or source) in order to get Inkscape to run.
(I ran Redhat Advanced Server 3 before, and at time I encountered that installing Inkscape 0.40 required me to install packages which in turn had dependencies which at the end of the day required me upgrade sort of half of my RPMs!).
Sorry for ranting and sounding negative, it's simply that I really, really love this piece of software and long for that moment when I can run around among friends and workmates and evangelize about how wonderful it is and what a fantastic graphics format SVG is etc etc.... so finding that I now and then get's locked out from using it in it's latest production release is very frustrating! It makes it hard to evangelizing about it, when installing it have rather draconian requirements. Yes, I know, this is a pre-production release and yes, I've not contributed a BIT to the project, not even assisted in building those static RPMs which I were encouraged to do so I should really keep my mouth shut... (or rather, my fingers away from the keyboard).
I'm running Redhat Advanced Server 4. Think I mentioned that above BTW.
And yes, Inkscape 0.41 is a lovely product. I'm certain that 0.42 is even lovlier and yes, I will eventually get it running for me (very, very, VERY eager about testing out the new user interface to curve editing!!)
Best regards
/IlvJa
On 10/21/05, Jakob Ilves <jakob.ilves@...1215...> wrote:
I'm running Redhat Advanced Server 4. Think I mentioned that above BTW.
And yes, Inkscape 0.41 is a lovely product. I'm certain that 0.42 is even lovlier and yes, I will eventually get it running for me (very, very, VERY eager about testing out the new user interface to curve editing!!)
http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/2265410/com/inkscape-0.42-2.el4....
Is this what you want?
Alexandre
I fully realize that you are in search of a working RPM. But your difficulty installing Inkscape makes you fully quailfied to help me test the autopackages (http://autopackage.org) that I am preparing for the upcoming 0.43 release. It won't hurt my feelings if you uninstall my package and start using the RPMs again, but I would very much appreciate if you could download and test the my latest package and report back your experience.
http://inkscape.modevia.com/ap/inkscape200510202021-0.42+devel.x86.package
To install just make the file executable (chmod u+x inkscape*.package) and run it. To uninstall run `package remove inkscape`.
Thanks, Aaron Spike
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:53:48 +0200, Jakob Ilves wrote:
When I try to run inkscape I get the following message:
inkscape: error while loading shared libraries: libpangocairo-1.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
This has already been raised on the developer list (see the "Static RPM" thread). It's a problem with the way the binaries were built. You cannot separately install "libpangocairo" as it's a part of GTK+ 2.8, not a standalone library. Inkscape does not need GTK+ 2.8, it's what's called a "bogus dependency", ie the binary is requesting the library but never actually uses it.
The autopackages do not have this problem as we use special tools that automatically fix such things. They will probably work for you if the static RPMs don't.
The Inkscape project actually cares a *great* deal about installability, far more than many open source projects do. Packages are tested before release and new dependencies are carefully considered. Please do not blame Inkscape for the fact that RPM is not a suitable technology for multi-distribution installs.
thanks -mike
Hello!
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:53:48 +0200, Jakob Ilves wrote:
When I try to run inkscape I get the following message:
inkscape: error while loading shared libraries: libpangocairo-1.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
This has already been raised on the developer list (see the "Static RPM" thread). It's a problem with the way the binaries were built. You cannot separately install "libpangocairo" as it's a part of GTK+ 2.8, not a standalone library. Inkscape does not need GTK+ 2.8, it's what's called a "bogus dependency", ie the binary is requesting the library but never actually uses it.
Ok... I'll dig into the archives and read the thread.
I understand that GTK+ 2.8 is a dependency (even if it's bogus) but if it is and I don't have that version (or a later) of GTK+ installed, shouldn't RPM refuse to install inkscape-0.42.2-1.rpm in the first place?
The autopackages do not have this problem as we use special tools that automatically fix such things. They will probably work for you if the static RPMs don't.
I can give it a try and those autopackages will probably work for me... and for those the others I'm trying to recruit to the "Inkscape user community", the RPMs are moot anyway (almost all of them use Windows...).
In the long run it is very valuable to have a reliable RPM distribution, for many reasons. One is that the rpm packaging technology, with warts and all, is well known to a large portion of the user community so if that distribution format is available and works, more users will be able to use the product. I also assume that Inkscape eventually will be included in future distributions of Redhat, Fedora, Mandrake etc and both on their installation media as well as in their update services all software is made available as RPMs. But at the time we have Inkscape 1.0 out, I assume that Redhat and co will ensure that RPMs are made available from them that work with their distributions.
The Inkscape project actually cares a *great* deal about installability, far more than many open source projects do. Packages are tested before release and new dependencies are carefully considered. Please do not blame Inkscape for the fact that RPM is not a suitable technology for multi-distribution installs.
Understood. However, from my experiences trying to install the 0.42.2-1 RPM, it was not particularly obvious that it was RPM's unsuitability for multi-distribution installs that was the cause to the problem. One reason for that is that for other open-source packages I've used, the precompiled RPMs have worked without any issues on my Linux laptop: either they accepted to install and then the product worked or they detected an unresolved dependency, reported that and aborted the install. I never ran into a situation where the product RPM installed and then the product refused to run.
thanks -mike
My apologizes for sounding a bit cranky. Keep up the good work! I'll give the autopackages a try.
Best regards
/IlvJa
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
On Friday 21 October 2005 17:49, Jakob Ilves wrote:
I never ran into a situation where the product RPM installed and then the product refused to run.
I'm new at creating RPM packages and it was bound to create some problems. Honestly, I'm suprised there weren't more errors reported. I shouldn't have left those RPMs on SourceForge when I read there were issues with them, though. I've just been so very busy...
I'll remove them ASAP and try to upload new ones this week-end. Stay tuned and sorry for the inconvenience.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:49:10 +0200, Jakob Ilves wrote:
I understand that GTK+ 2.8 is a dependency (even if it's bogus) but if it is and I don't have that version (or a later) of GTK+ installed, shouldn't RPM refuse to install inkscape-0.42.2-1.rpm in the first place?
Only if the automatic dependency scanner of RPM is enabled. But, this can add bogus depedencies in another way, so often it's not used. In this case I guess it was not used.
to use the product. I also assume that Inkscape eventually will be included in future distributions of Redhat, Fedora, Mandrake etc and both on their installation media as well as in their update services all software is made available as RPMs.
It already is included in many distros, but often these distributions do not offer anything but security updates after they release. So the users are stuck with out of date versions (Ubuntu does this).
Understood. However, from my experiences trying to install the 0.42.2-1 RPM, it was not particularly obvious that it was RPM's unsuitability for multi-distribution installs that was the cause to the problem. One reason for that is that for other open-source packages I've used, the precompiled RPMs have worked without any issues on my Linux laptop:
Presumably you used RPMs that were built for your specific distribution/version combination. That's the only safe way to build RPMs unless you have specific Linux binary compatibility knowledge. All RPMs in repositories are built this way for instance.
thanks -mike
From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Oct 23 04:03:22 2005
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:09 +0200 (MEST) From: MAILER-DAEMON@...1217... (Mail Delivery System) To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="C4DCE3C32F.1130065389/monza.eurecom.fr" Message-Id: <20051023110309.00DDB3C332@...1218...> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. Report problems to http://sf.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=1&atid=200001 0.1 MIME_SUSPECT_NAME RAW: MIME filename does not match content Subject: [Inkscape-user] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Sender: inkscape-user-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: inkscape-user-admin@lists.sourceforge.net X-BeenThere: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9-sf.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user, mailto:inkscape-user-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe List-Id: Inkscape User Community <inkscape-user.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Post: mailto:inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: mailto:inkscape-user-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help List-Subscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user, mailto:inkscape-user-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe List-Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=inkscape-user
This is a MIME-encapsulated message.
--C4DCE3C32F.1130065389/monza.eurecom.fr Content-Type: text/plain Content-Description: Notification
This is the Postfix program at host monza.eurecom.fr.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the message returned below.
The Postfix program
<ross@...1216...>: unknown user: "ross"
--C4DCE3C32F.1130065389/monza.eurecom.fr Content-Description: Delivery error report Content-Type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; monza.eurecom.fr Arrival-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:09 +0200 (MEST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; ross@...1216... Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; unknown user: "ross"
--C4DCE3C32F.1130065389/monza.eurecom.fr Content-Description: Undelivered Message Content-Type: message/rfc822
Received: from smtp.eurecom.fr (drago.eurecom.fr [10.3.2.210]) by monza.eurecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DCE3C32F for <ross@...1216...>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:09 +0200 (MEST) Received: from camilla.eurecom.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.eurecom.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9NB39Gq011669 for <ross@...1217...>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by camilla.eurecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CC7E4F for <ross@...1217...>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:09 +0200 (CEST) Resent-From: "Content-filter at camilla" <virusalert@...1217...> Resent-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:08 +0200 (CEST) Resent-Message-ID: <RE24022-08@...1219...> Received: from camilla.eurecom.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (camilla [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24022-08 for <ross@...1217...>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:08 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1130065388-24022-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (unknown [195.117.240.132]) by camilla.eurecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05089F44 for <ross@...1217...>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:02:52 +0200 (CEST) From: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net To: ross@...1217... Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20051023110252.05089F44@...1220...> Subject: ERROR X-Amavis-Modified: Original mail wrapped as attachment (defanged) by camilla X-Amavis-Alert: BANNED, message contains part: P=p003,L=1,M=multipart/mixed | P=p002,L=1/2,M=application/octet-stream,T=exe,N=readme.pif
This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
------------=_1130065388-24022-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
WARNING: contains banned part
------------=_1130065388-24022-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822; x-spam-type=original; name="message.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="message.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Description: Original message
Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (unknown [195.117.240.132]) by camilla.eurecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05089F44 for <ross@...1217...>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:02:52 +0200 (CEST) From: inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net To: ross@...1217... Subject: ERROR Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:03:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_1BE33540.D79BE431" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Message-Id: <20051023110252.05089F44@...1220...>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0010_1BE33540.D79BE431 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The message cannot be represented in 7-bit ASCII encoding and has been sent as a binary attachment.
------=_NextPart_000_0010_1BE33540.D79BE431 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
------------------ Virus Warning Message (on drago)
readme.pif is removed from here because it contains a virus.
--------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0010_1BE33540.D79BE431--
------------=_1130065388-24022-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
------------------ Virus Warning Message (on drago)
Found virus WORM_MYTOB.CY in file readme.pif The uncleanable file readme.pif is moved to /iscan/virus/virGOBBCaG_v.
---------------------------------------------------------
------------=_1130065388-24022-1-- --C4DCE3C32F.1130065389/monza.eurecom.fr--
On Friday 21 October 2005 16:27, Mike Hearn wrote:
Please do not blame Inkscape for the fact that RPM is not a suitable technology for multi-distribution installs.
That may be true, but I agree that the packager hasn't been very suitable until now :-) So you can blame me.
I'll remove the current broken RPMs and try to fix this issue this week-end. I couldn't do it before.
participants (5)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Jakob Ilves -
Jean-Francois Lemaire -
Mike Hearn