Hi all, I'm more of a "user" than a "developer" kind of guy.
I'm still running RedHat-7.3 with updates on a Pentium II 266 MHz 128 MB. Haven't updated gaf for a while now, running a 2003 version. Has to do with the guile thingies. Dunno about ./configure make make -install for geda and friends, I've never compiled gaf. Most of the time I just do RPM -Uvh *.rpm in a dir with gaf-RPM's. Big thanks to Wojciech et al. OK, compiling used to work for pcb, still running a early 2005 version, no RPM's seen lately. I'd rather put schematics and boards together. Just my EUR 0.02. Kind regards, Bert Timmerman. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steven Wilson Sent: dinsdag 10 januari 2006 17:04 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: gEDA: A complaint about glib-2.6 in libgeda Al Davis wrote: > But they don't need to upgrade to the latest distro and version. > They only need to install the appropriate libraries, and > possibly a more recent compiler. If they are building from > source, they can build the library from source too. > > Such an old system may not be a standard distro. It is likely > that it has been updated many times, but not in an organized > way. Even if it was a standard distro at the beginning you may > not recognize it as such now. Besides, nobody in their right > mind would want to keep track of all 200 distros. > (Other stuff deleted...) Think about that in the context of this discussion Al. I think every one of your assumptions above is suspect from the point of view of a nominal "user" who doesn't know how, have a desire for, or even is allowed to upgrade a library or a compiler! I've compiled GCC a couple times in my life - it isn't the usual type of thing a "user" who has an account on a machine at work does. For that matter - even compiling software is a highly dubious model for distribution to the "masses." For goodness-sake, one of the BIG differentiators between the different distributions is HOW they distribute! Their package manager is one of the areas of innovation that differentiates distributions. Look at "Lindows" (or whatever they're called this week..) They're ENTIRE novelty is the fact that they give you a base set of software then charge you a subscription fee to easily install other software out of their applications vault. Now for my own two cents worth. I'm not a "casual" user. I've been around Linux since 1992. I can't tell you how many times I've been in "Library Hell" when trying to get something new running. One of the HUGE culprits has consistantly been the gtk libraries and config files, and the applications configure scripts not finding the "latest" version I installed/compiled/whatever. With that said - I'm going to TRY and suggest a point of view that might help when trying to solve these issues. (I suspect this is going to be antithetical too ;-) Anything that provides a COMPLETE package where you get everything with one down load, and you just do ./configure, make, make install is the world to aim for. You take a snap shot of ALL the libraries used by your application - and you don't change them - EVER. They are all included with the distribution of your software and you build on it. Finally - you statically link everything. This way it's completely stand-alone. Now I realize this means that you get to take a snapshot of all the bugs too! But then, every new release of software of any sort comes with it's own fixes and bugs doesn't it. That's my two cents worth. Steve Wilson
