On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:03:52PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > my question was about the logic which lead to this condition of this > > gimp and its ability to install different versions, side by side. > > like the good old days. > > I am sorry but I think I answered that question. Which part of the > answer did you not understand? I've quoted my answer below. > > > > "That's the reason that gimp-2.1 cannot be installed into the same > > > prefix as gimp-2.0. It's supposed to replace it. Currently there's > > > the temporary condition that gimp-2.1 installs quite some things > > > into directories versioned as 2.1. This is supposed to be changed > > > back to 2.0 when gimp-2.2 is ready." > > I admit that "temporary condition" probably doesn't make much sense > but that was me using your words. What I was trying to say is that the > current behaviour of installing things into directories versioned > "2.1" is going to be reverted for 2.2. If possible, everything will go > into the same directories that gimp-2.0 uses. > well, it appears to be a choice between explaining logic to the other person i found in this world who had some or reproducing a bug and begging for search words on a different list.
which would you choose? carol _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
