Package Details: gimp-gap 2.7-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: gimp-gap
Description: Gimp Animation Package, gimp's plugin for animation
Upstream URL:
Licenses: GPLv3
Submitter: ElMastro
Maintainer: ElMastro
Last Packager: ElMastro
Votes: 12
Popularity: 0.000001
First Submitted: 2015-12-03 22:05
Last Updated: 2019-08-04 20:37

Dependencies (10)

Required by (0)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »

ElMastro commented on 2016-02-03 13:48

I've tried with intltool, but still doesn't work. Since there's no answer in the forum, I'm trying to figure what changes from the first and the second compilation, expecially with external libraries

magesing commented on 2016-01-31 21:31

I managed to get it installed, after installing the `intltool` package first.

If you see the following problem when doing
`Video->Split Video Into Frames->Mplayer based extraction . . .`

-aofile has been removed. Use -ao pcm:file=<filename> instead.
-jpeg has been removed. Use -vo jpeg:<options> instead.
MPlayer SVN-r37379 (C) 2000-2015 MPlayer Team
210 audio & 441 video codecs


You need to uncheck the Mplayer 1.0pre5 checkbox in the dialog.

ElMastro commented on 2016-01-30 00:15

The posting regarding this PKGBUILD in the Arch Forum haven't developed for 3 days now. If the package bothers, I'll happily remove/disown it, but certainly I need much time to figure how to create a repo and how it works.
Tne reason why I kept the PKGBUILD was that I figured that the problem could be solved easily to solve compiling it twice.
From the experience here and in the forum now my guess is that the package has more then one problem, and some of them are really tricky to solve, as problably there's something not working in the source package itself.

komitaltrade commented on 2016-01-28 17:09

OK. In fact, I know, but that is not point of issue.
You should first to make some sort of the poll to see how many peoples will be available to be your "testers". If that will satisfy you, than you should to create your own testing repository, what all your "testers" can add to repos and than they will be able to test it.
Creating repo is quite simple. Only question remain from begin - do you have enough "testers".

komitaltrade commented on 2016-01-28 15:51

That is the right question. ..... no idea.

ElMastro commented on 2016-01-28 15:21

Well, I hunderstand what you say, and I think everybody knows this package has problems regarding libraries and configuration, both here and in the forum.

For me the problem is really simple: Before uploading the first PKGBUILD I asked in the forum if someone would mantain it, and nobody could do it. Because it was suppressed when I searched it.

How can we test it, if we remove it from the AUR? Can you suggest alternatives to the removal?

komitaltrade commented on 2016-01-28 01:06

Mmmm... lets start with "technicalities".
1) If user will ignore it, how will found about available "health" update?
2) You (package) have obviously several issues (not just one).
3) For me, it fails for "Makefile:331: recipe for target 'install-recursive' failed".
4) It can be installed if previous first will be removed.
5) Again, obvious that you have some problems in compilation in sense that you using in compiltion some libraries from same locations where are they located if package is installed.

Arch and AUR
1) First to be clear, this is not a critics. I want to try to explain to you all your "responsibilities".
So, primary thanks for maintaining it. However, you should to be aware about entire Linux (Arch) community, not just about your package.
Material fact is that building issue obviously indicate about the quality of the package itself (in all elements). Packages like this, gives the "material" (proves) for "experts" to "shit" on Arch like "unstable" distro, what clearly drop down users numbers and popularity. More "problematic" packages = less users. That is so obvious also for "blind" persons.
2) Second, what is the real purpose of the package existence on AUR what most users cannot install/update in any case???
3) What is the GIMP community benefits to have "problematic" packages???
4) Clearly low amount of comments, obviously shows that not to many people on Arch use GAP at all. So, do yu realy beleive that "problematic" update package will help to GAP to increase number of users???

moulu commented on 2016-01-27 23:23

Same problem as AndrzejL.
A successfull workaround for me was to remove gimp-gap 2.6.0-4 and then to install gimp-gap 2.6.0-5

ElMastro commented on 2016-01-27 16:50

For me doesn't work, even with setconf. I do believe that in my case it keeps including libmpeg3. Probably I need time to experiment various configurations in the PKGBUILD.

For komitaitrade, I think's simpler to configure the system to ignore gimp-gap, either with "--ignore" from the shell or inserting the option "IgnoreGroup" on pacman.conf, as usually AUR do often has broken/ experimental packages.
However, if someone else says it bothers, I'll remove it.

frankspace commented on 2016-01-27 08:58

Well, I just double-checked my proposed PKGBUILD on a different computer to be sure that it still works for me, and it does (I mean, it doesn't build libmpeg3, but apart from that). Is it possible that there is an unidentified dependency that I just happen to have installed and you don't? One of the older PKGBUILDs I referred to when creating mine specifies "setconf" as a makedepend, which I do happen to have installed although I don't know why it would be needed; nevertheless, do you? Otherwise, I'm out of guesses.