Installation Notes


Posting rules: It shouldn't need saying, but... play nice. Please keep your discussions civil. You can disagree, just don't be disagreeable. And, of course, all of the usual stuff like no spamming. Tex adds: I'll be rigorously enforcing this as we go along. We're probably going to be a small community in a little lifeboat, so we can't have members at each others' throats. This is for the sake of the project as a whole. So when you post, pretend you're speaking in person with your very wealthy auntie who has always treated you wonderfully and currently lists you prominently in her will. I won't be tossing anyone out of the forums because we are all in this together (except spammers: immediate membership cancelation), but I'll delete suspect posts right away.


18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Blaze
Installation Notes

I'll keep updating this as I go, but here's the initial reaction to my attempts to install on 2 systems:

System 1
Toshiba Satellite Laptop

CPU:Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU T3400 @ 2.16GHz
GPU:Intel Corporation Mobile 4 Series Chipset Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 07)
Network:Loopback device Interface
Network:RTL8101E/RTL8102E PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller
Network:AR242x / AR542x Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express)

Running
OS: Linux 3.8.4-102.fc17.i686 i686
System: Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle)
KDE: 4.10.1

Installed Lightzone using Apper Installer
Installed okay

Attemped to launch program = Failed
file:///usr/share/lightzone/LightZone-forkd

I get the "bouncy icon" as if the application is trying to launch, but the process does not register (doesn't show in htop) nor does it launch. No warnings or error codes.

System 2
Dell Inspirion Desktop

CPU: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 450 @ 2.20GHz
GPU: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] nee ATI RV620 LE [Radeon HD 3450]
Network:Loopback device Interface
Network:82562V-2 10/100 Network Connection

Running Kubuntu 12.04

Installation attempt

GDebi = failed
GDebi brought up the installer, I clicked the "install" button, and waited. CPU ran up to 100% for about 20 seconds, then nothing. I waited for about a minute and when nothing happened, I closed GDebi. Nothing was installed, no warnings or error messages.

Moved to Command line.
First attempt failed (dependencies).
Installed OpenJDK 7 and tried again.

(note "replace" is because I tried this twice with the same result)

blaze@Athens:~$ sudo dpkg -i lightzone_3.9.1_i386.deb
(Reading database ... 245066 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace lightzone 3.9.0 (using lightzone_3.9.1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement lightzone ...
Setting up lightzone (3.9.0) ...
Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ...
blaze@Athens:~$

Result: Failed. usr/share/lightzone has 1 subfolded (images) with 3 .png files in it. That is all. All else failed to install.

hansemann
re: Installation Notes

Hi, I would try to start lightzone in a terminal,
so you can see what errors show up.
...On your Kbuntu try to purge your lightzone (sudo dpkg -P lightzone ) and reinstal it....but /usr/share/lightzone has only one subfolder with 3 images... other parts are installed in /opt/lightzone ... /usr/bin and so on

Blaze
Ah... so the files are

Ah... so the files are installed in different places between Fedora and Ubuntu? Okay. I didn't know that. I've never seen anything install into /opt/ on kubuntu before.

Result:
blaze@Athens:/usr/bin$ lightzone
Starting LightZone version 3.9.1 ...
with options :
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: com/lightcrafts/platform/linux/LinuxLauncher : Unsupported major.minor version 51.0
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:634)
at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:142)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:277)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$000(URLClassLoader.java:73)
at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:212)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:205)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:321)
at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:294)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:266)
Could not find the main class: com.lightcrafts.platform.linux.LinuxLauncher. Program will exit.

hansemann
The error you get and how it

The error you get and how it is fixed is described under "Thoughts for Linux beta testers"
here in the forum - it is easy.

Blaze
Work has kept me away from

Work has kept me away from here, so I apologize for the long delay in this reply.

What, exactly, is the fix?

What I see is "upgrade Java to v7". I did that. What else should I be looking for?

This is beta testing, not alpha. A beta test should be to work out minor bugs and make tweaks to the UI. It shouldn't involve "I can't install the program", and answers shouldn't include "look it up".

I'm not saying this to be a dick. I'm saying this as someone who has worked in Customer Service (in one form or another) for almost 30 years. *This* is my contribution to the beta testing.

It doesn't matter how good the program is. If tech support/customer service fails, the project will fail. Instructions need to be simple, clear, and in plain English.

You say "it is easy". Maybe it is for you. Don't assume that's true for everyone else. This is one of the biggest problems with Linux (and any other OS): The power-users assume that everyone is a power user. I've been running Linux for about 7 years. I'm familiar with the command line, I can modify config files, I'm not afraid of sudo--I actually prefer dropping into root, now. However... I have no clue what you're referring to when you say "go look at this thread, it's easy".

And... "Go look at this thread, it's easy" will be seen as condescending. That statement sends a very clear message to anyone who is having a problem. It says "You're obviously stupid".

I know that wasn't your intent--far from it. That is, however, how it will be perceived.

I'm a thick-skinned geek (but not a guru), and my reaction to the comment was "ah, fuck it; I'll deal with it later when I have time to wade through responses and figure it out." Frankly? I have better things to do than figure out how to install a program. It's inertia... I'll muck about in a program I've installed and figure out all the problems; I'll ignore a program that requires effort to install.

This means that I'll never get around to actually using your program. You've lost a customer--one who actively wants to use your program--before he's even seen the program.

I want to figure it out. I'm a geek! It's part of my nature. However... I work 6 days a week, I have other--more important (to me)--projects, I have many demands on my time. I didn't offer to be an Alpha tester. I offered to be a Beta tester. I expected that "install the program" would be trouble-free. I offered to test the program, not the installation process. If I need to upgrade other applications (such as Java) in order to use your program, I expect this to be explicitly stated, and to have instructions provided.

If, at this point, there isn't a clear, step-by-step, document on how to install the application, then you have a very severe problem. If installation isn't ultra-simple, nobody will use the program.

Photographers aren't geeks. They want to work with photos, not dig through forum threads on how to satisfy dependencies and remove deprecated versions of platform-agnostic script languages.

TL;DR If installation isn't one-click and simple, then fuck it; I don't have time to deal with it[1].

I'm more than happy to step up and train people on how to do customer service as my contribution to the project. That's certainly something I can contribute.

Until someone writes a step-by-step instruction on how to install the application--or better yet, the installation requires no instructions--I won't be able to offer any insight into the actual application.

I'll just keep using the old version I have. And--until installation is fool-proof (because the world is full of fools)--I won't be recommending LZ to anyone.

---
[1] That's a variation of what customers are going to say.

forest_bear59
I can tell You, how I managed

I can tell You, how I managed to get the package started with Arch Linux. Maybe it could help You as well ...

I inspected the rpm-package (with the ark archiver tool) and found out, that only the lightzone subdirectory in the 'opt' branch is essential for starting the program. So I transferred the lightzone directory into my home-dir and adapted the lightzone starting script in this subdirectory somewhat ...

===============================================================================================
#!/bin/sh
#
# LightZone startscript
#
echo Starting LightZone version 3.9.1 ...
echo with options : ${@}

totalmem=`cat /proc/meminfo | grep MemTotal | sed -r 's/.* ([0-9]+) .*/\1/'`
if [ $totalmem -ge 1024000 ]; then
maxmem=$(( $totalmem / 2 ))
else
maxmem=512000
fi

(cd "/home/myname/lightzone" && LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/home/myname/lightzone" exec java -Xmx${maxmem}k -Djava.library.path="/home/myname/lightzone" -Dfile.encoding=utf-8 -classpath "/home/myname/lightzone/*" com.lightcrafts.platform.linux.LinuxLauncher ${@} )
===============================================================================================

... after that I was able to start Lightzone right from the command line. Even if You don't appreciate this kind of work, it could help You to find out, what the problem is with Your system.

Naturally I must admit, that this way to install won't bring documentation on Your system. When beta-testing is through, I'll generate a real Arch Linux package, I promise ;-) .

Regards
Stephan

tex
Well, I hear you, Blaze. But several points....

Before I saw this post I had gotten a message from members of the Google Groups Dev Team group---some pretty good news, although I'll hold it for now---and my response to them, while not as , uh, intense, maybe is the word, posed a series of questions and this was one of them: installation instructions. Because you are DEAD right that the vast majority of the people who will download this software aren't anywhere close to the type of user most Linux people are----already (by the poll) about 2/3 are not Linux people, and I commended the Linux people in the aforementioned post to the Dev group as being amazingly strong technically.

I have been using LZ as long as anyone here (I was LC LZ forums member #25, and a lot of the members with lower numbers worked for the company then...), and I was the last forums administrator (with Marcelo and Grant: "SFA") standing for LC....

....and most of the time I have NO IDEA what the Dev Team is talking about, and when I do it's just the dimmest glimmer. A lot of these posts in the Linux beta test forum are equally opaque to me at my current stage of development.

But, please believe that this will get sorted. One reason I have been in no rush to release this even to the membership ( and the Windows version arguably could have been let go weeks ago...), let alone the general public, is the lack of this very thing, clear installation instructions written for people who have no tech savvy at all.

But understand a couple of other things too. Now that this is an open source project, the whole nature of this beast is different. In a lot of ways it's as much a development project for interested parties of the open source universe---some of whom I think may only be incidentally interested in the software itself as a photo editor--- as it is a project to keep alive this photo editor a bunch of us know and love.. And ,ahem, one that is supposed to be "intuitive" at that, which of course underscores the argument that it should be painless to install and run. So, our community is VERY different now than it has ever been before.

#2, it's a total volunteer effort. One day I'm going to set up a donations stream to help fund just keeping the website up and running, and, if we are colossally fortunate, to help fund some additional development. But everything that has been done by the guys behind the scenes so far has been totally gratis. They need to hear you and the completely legit points you bring up, and see your frustration, but....you could also dial it back a notch. But also don't stop the critique, because it's really important imo.

Finally, I can sense some impatience (a little, between the lines) in recent communications I've had back channel from Doug Pardee, our true godfather on this. I sense he's been getting a little antsy about the release. And after a year and a half from the start of LightZombie to now with the LightZone Project, I too have had my moments of impatience, most especially back in February. But now i have found new reserves of patience. I feel like we are in the middle of a baby delivery and things are actually going pretty well, and we don't need to rush it. In fact right at this moment rushing seems like a bad thing to do. For my own part, I have concerns over our structure as an enterprise and keeping the Dev people interested long term, which is going to be necessary. All I can do at the moment is fund things and chop away at the new website---which I gotta tell you, is the steepest learning curve I've ever encountered. Makes Adobe PS/CS look as intuitive as LightZone, by comparison!

Today one thing I would say to you and everyone else: for the immediate moment, let's NOT talk up this project too much. We actually don't need it---we're getting many new members right now without saying a thing---we're over 700 right now. When we send out the press release, I'm actually very anxious that we may be more successful than we are prepared for, especially in the current climate of PP program reassessment that the Adobe announcement has engendered.

So, hang in there, buddy. It's going to work out. And work out better than Doug and my wildest dreams in October of 2011....

Blaze
@ Tex

@ Tex

I completely understand everything you said. As they say "Been there, done that". :)

I *want* to shout this project from the rooftops (I've used LZ since 2.1--and still have a copy of 2.4 on my media box) but I won't do so until the project is ready to be shouted about. I trust you'll let us all know when we can "begin the shoutin'" :)

As for the "dial it down a notch" comment: I did not--and do not--mean any insult or disparagement in my comments. I'm simply a "straight-to-the-point" sort of person. These are the issues I see, this is how I know others will respond.

What I see--from my own attempts to use the new LZ, and your response--is a simple problem with project management. It's an amazingly common mistake (that I've made many times, and expect to make many more): We focus too much on "core" and all-but-ignore the "front door". Most people who work on these projects (especially a volunteer project like this one) are coders. They want to "get into the guts" of a project. They're geeks, for whom "resolve dependencies and tweak the config file" is second nature. They don't understand that others *don't* understand.

This is where you need a good project manager. Installation should be #1 on the list for a beta. Annoyed users can be dealt with. Without installation, however, you have no users. Without users, the rest is moot.

As a long-time user of LightZone, here's what bothers me the most: I currently have LZ 2.4 and 3.9 running on my media box. 3.9 is 5 years old. 2.4 is at least 6 years old. They both work perfectly fine[1]. Why doesn't the newest version?

When I try to install a new version of an application and it says I have to update my system (in some unspecified way)--when 6- and 5-year-old versions of the same program work perfectly well... I see a problem. Regardless of any other improvements that have been made, the program has gone *backwards* at least 6 years.

Tex, I understand what you're trying to do, I understand the problems you're having, and I really want you to succeed. Part of that is because I respect the philosophy and approach of LZ and your efforts to take it open-source. Most of it, however, is purely selfish: I despise Photoshop, and LightZone is exactly what I need. :)

You already have a great group of coders. My advice to you is to find a good project manager. There are a lot of people out there who aren't code-geeks, but who want to contribute to F/OSS. I can guarantee that there are qualified project managers out there who will be happy to contribute to this project and shape your coding team into a focused and customer-aware team.

If you'd like someone to get the ball rolling, I'm happy to toss my hat into the ring until you find someone more qualified.

---
[1] The only reason I stopped using 2.4 is that the RAW-interpreter wasn't updated, and my camera had a new RAW format.

andr345
Hello Blaze,

Hello Blaze,

try the startscript located in /opt/lightzone/lightzone or /usr/bin/lightzone. At least in the RPM there is no KDE/Gnome-Integration.

Andreas

tex
Hey, Andreas---

you guys have done a great job!

tex

karl
Installation of lightzone

Hello
I have also problems installing LZ in Ubuntu 12.04. I get no reaction, vhen trying to start LZ from the panel.
Trying to start from the terminal, I get this output:
karl@karl-HP-ProBook-6460b:~$ lightzone
Starting LightZone version 4.0.0 ...
with options :
ERROR: ld.so: object '/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/liblzma.so.5' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded: ignored.
ERROR: ld.so: object '/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/liblzma.so.5' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded: ignored.
This is LightZone 4.0.0 ()
java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError
at contrib.com.jgoodies.looks.common.ShadowPopupFactory.install(ShadowPopupFactory.java:115)
at org.jvnet.substance.SubstanceLookAndFeel.initialize(SubstanceLookAndFeel.java:3683)
at javax.swing.UIManager.setLookAndFeel(UIManager.java:529)
at org.jvnet.substance.SubstanceLookAndFeel.setSkin(SubstanceLookAndFeel.java:4996)
at com.lightcrafts.ui.LightZoneSkin.getLightZoneLookAndFeel(LightZoneSkin.java:295)
at com.lightcrafts.platform.linux.LinuxPlatform.getLookAndFeel(LinuxPlatform.java:47)
at com.lightcrafts.platform.linux.LinuxLauncher.main(LinuxLauncher.java:34)
Caused by: java.awt.HeadlessException
at sun.awt.HeadlessToolkit.getScreenResolution(HeadlessToolkit.java:221)
at contrib.com.jgoodies.looks.LookUtils.isLowResolution(LookUtils.java:447)
at contrib.com.jgoodies.looks.LookUtils.(LookUtils.java:241)
... 7 more
Exception in thread "main" java.awt.HeadlessException
at java.awt.GraphicsEnvironment.checkHeadless(GraphicsEnvironment.java:173)
at java.awt.Window.(Window.java:546)
at java.awt.Frame.(Frame.java:419)
at java.awt.Frame.(Frame.java:384)
at javax.swing.SwingUtilities$SharedOwnerFrame.(SwingUtilities.java:1754)
at javax.swing.SwingUtilities.getSharedOwnerFrame(SwingUtilities.java:1831)
at javax.swing.JOptionPane.getRootFrame(JOptionPane.java:1692)
at javax.swing.JOptionPane.getWindowForComponent(JOptionPane.java:1633)
at javax.swing.JOptionPane.createDialog(JOptionPane.java:958)
at javax.swing.JOptionPane.createDialog(JOptionPane.java:920)
at com.lightcrafts.app.ExceptionDialog.showError(ExceptionDialog.java:143)
at com.lightcrafts.app.ExceptionDialog.handle(ExceptionDialog.java:103)
at com.lightcrafts.platform.linux.LinuxLauncher.main(LinuxLauncher.java:52)
karl@karl-HP-ProBook-6460b:~$ ^C
karl@karl-HP-ProBook-6460b:~$

Anybody who can help me??
Regards
Karl

mjhuurre
Ubuntu 12.04 installation

I installed LightZone 4 as instructed in installation notes (Ubuntu/apt-get install). Got the same error message as Karl. For me it was earlier java version which currently is the default:

$ java -version
java version "1.6.0_27"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea6 1.12.5) (6b27-1.12.5-0ubuntu0.12.04.1)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 20.0-b12, mixed mode)

I have also version 1.7 installed:

$ /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-amd64/bin/java -version
java version "1.7.0_21"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea 2.3.9) (7u21-2.3.9-0ubuntu0.12.04.1)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.7-b01, mixed mode)

I dealt with this with (as root/sudo):

1) copied /usr/bin/lightzone to /usr/local/bin/lightzone400
2) opened /usr/local/bin/lightzone400 with editor (like nano), replaced
exec java
with
exec /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-amd64/jre/bin/java

Now I can run lightzone with lightzone400 (also copied related lightzone.desktop file to lightzone400.desktop and edited accordingly).

Other way would be to set version 1.7 as the default. Which probably, in the long term, might be the right way to do it.

As this version does not include embedded java version like previous 3.9, this left me wondering if future java updated might cause troubles. Then again, only good java is updated java (write once, exploit everywhere...).

-- mjhuurre

flann4lz
I don't know if I see it

I don't know if I see it right, but I think you have problems with Java ?!
What say 'java -version' ?
On my computer with LinuxMint 15 (= Ubuntu 13.04) 'java -version' give me:

java version "1.7.0_21"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea 2.3.9) (7u21-2.3.9-1ubuntu1)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.7-b01, mixed mode)

And LightZone runs without trouble.

karl
Problem solved

I found out I had both Java version 6 and 7 installed. When I removed the old version, Lighzone started up and runs fine.
Thank you for your help.
Best regards
Karl

ktgw0316
Binary for ubuntu 12.04

Oops, I've overlooked your reports. :(

karl, would you help me to fix the Java6 problem? If my understanding is correct, a package for ubuntu 12.04 works fine even with Java6.

 

(1) Please reinstall the Java6 and set it as default java. You can switch default java versions with this command:

update-alternatives --config java

 

(2) Remove the lightzone package for 13.04:

sudo apt-get remove lightzone

 

(3) Setup a source list for 12.04 and install the lightzone again. Note that "12.04" instead of the "13.04" in the installation instruction:

sudo sh -c "echo 'deb http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/ktgw0316:/LightZone/xUbu... ./' > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/lightzone.list"

 

(4) Install the lightzone again:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install lightzone

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Masahiro from dev-team

Blaze
Going backwards

Tried to install 4.0 on a brand new machine with Fedora 18, all up-to-date.

Transaction check error:
  file /usr/lib64/liblzma.so.5 from install of liblzma5-5.0.4-1.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package xz-libs-5.1.2-4alpha.fc19.x86_64

Last time it would install but not run.  Now it won't even install.

I have an out-of-the-box install of Fedora 18--not a single modifcation, and up-to-date as of yesterday.

hps
Same on Fedora 19

Transaction check error:
  file /usr/lib64/liblzma.so.5 from install of liblzma5-5.0.4-1.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package xz-libs-5.1.2-4alpha.fc19.x86_64
xz-libs seems to be the 32 bit version.

[root@localhost ~]# yum list xz-libs liblzma5
Installied
xz-libs.i686 5.1.2-4alpha.fc19 @fedora
xz-libs.x86_64 5.1.2-4alpha.fc19 @anaconda
Available
liblzma5.i686 5.0.4-1.1 home_ktgw0316_LightZone
liblzma5.x86_64 5.0.4-1.1 home_ktgw0316_LightZone

looks like the package requirement from LZ conflicts with Fedora

 

Blaze
Success!

Okay... this happened a while ago, but life has been chaotic and (sorry) LZ is currently low on my priority list.

So... I purchased a new laptop at the beginning of the month, and installed Fedora 19.  On a whim, I decided to try installing LZ (despite my previous failures).  I love the software and I really want it on my systems.

It installed without a problem.   I haven't had much time to use it seriously, but I've fired it up and did some simple tweaks to old photos I had.   Everything I've seen looks good.

My kudos and thanks to everyone who has worked on this.

I know I sometimes (often?  usually? always?) sound harsh in my comments, but that's simply the way we do things where I grew up.  When dealing with mechanical (software) problems, we state the facts--simply and honestly.  We don't waste time with pleasantries; they machines don't care if you're polite or not.

You guys have done a great job. 

I'll continue to post comments as I have the opportunity to use the new versions of the software.  My comments will continue to be brusk.  Please understand that they are not meant to be insulting or accusatory.  It's "just the facts, ma'am."