Craig Bradney skrev: > On Wednesday 29 November 2006 23:28, Axel Bojer wrote: >> Louis Desjardins skrev: >>> Craig Bradney a ?crit : >>>> On Wednesday 29 November 2006 20:46, Gregory Pittman wrote: >>>>> avox wrote: >>>>>> Gregory Pittman wrote: >>>>>>> I just noticed recently that 1.3.3.x versions cannot import 1.3.4cvs >>>>>>> files. Is this going to be a permanent issue? >>>>>> Yes. We only provide backward compatibility, not forward >>>>>> compatibility. 134cvs is a development version with a lot of file >>>>>> format changes. You should only use it for playing around and use 133x >>>>>> for production work. >>>>> Do you think we might ever see an option to save in an older format? In >>>>> other words, have the possibility from 1.3.4 to save into a >>>>> 1.3.3.x-compatible format? >>>>> A slightly different version of "backward compatibility." >>>> Yes it might be possible. One of the things I extended in 1.3.4cvs is >>>> the separation of the loader and saver plugins. We *may* extend the >>>> 1.3.3.x loader plugin to also be a saver plugin.. however, this will not >>>> happen in 1.3.4, and more than likely not in 1.3.5. >>> Just a thought on Greg's idea. I wonder whether saving in an older >>> format would be as good as it seems. Does that still make sense from the >>> free software point of view? Anyone wishing to upgrade can do so at no >>> cost. If a user come across a file the app can't open, it means the app >>> should be upgraded. That's it. We have lots of reflexes from the old >>> world. >> The problem woould be for people depending on the repositories of their >> favorite distribution, they will perhaps not know how, or want to learn, >> how to comile from the source-package. And using source packages also >> clutters up the system (for instance in debian distributions it does not >> fit very well with the apt-get system), therefore for many it would not > > This is untrue. Apart from any build dependencies and people learning to > build > an application, you can simply install into a directory in your home > directory, and delete/reinstall/upgrade at any time. You should not install > into /usr or whatever system prefix is used on the selected OS in such a > situation.
I dont know if I have understood you right, but does mean that when I now upgrade from 1.3.5 to 1.3.6 there is a special command for it? Or do you simply mean replacing? As of now I am simply using ./configure && make && make install without removing the old version, and it seems to work fine, so i suppose it is. Is this the wanted method? As as of removing ... If I have installed it locally it would be just for me. Removing would then be just removing the relevant directory? How do I remove when using the normal procedure of ./configure && make && make install I have never done this (removed), so I am asking out of curiosity :-) Is also on the system level everything in one directory? It don't seems so at least: $ whereis scribus scribus: /usr/lib/scribus /usr/local/bin/scribus /usr/local/lib/scribus Best regards Axel Bojer
