On Thursday 26 June 2008 14:34:05 John Culleton wrote: > On Wednesday 25 June 2008 03:25:35 am Craig Bradney wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > Subject: Re: [scribus] 1.3.3.12 no odt support??? > > > From: Rolf-Werner Eilert <eilert-sprachen at t-online.de> > > > To: cbradney at zipworld.com.au,"Scribus User Mailing List" > > > > <scribus at lists.scribus.info> > > > > > Date: 25-06-2008 8:40 > > > > > > Craig Bradney schrieb: > > > > Theres nothing wrong with the source that I can see... > > > > > > > > before you run configure, please run > > > > make -f Makefile.svn > > > > > > > > as per: > > > > http://docs.scribus.net/index.php?lang=en&page=install3 > > > > > > > > I have just gone through and tested many scenarious of code, > > > > missing > > > > includes, > > > > > > incorrect autohell versions etc, with the tarball and had all > > > > of the mentioned issues. Running the make -f line fixed it in > > > > one go with no workarounds. > > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > Even if it's not the svn version, Craig? I got the ordinary > > > source of the stable 1.3.3.12 to compile. > > > > Having not used autohell for awhile it took me awhile to go through > > the elimination process last night. I finally remembered we had > > issues like this in the past and it was because the person had not > > run make -f Makefile.svn. It will depend on your system as to > > whether you need this or not, I found I always had to run it in the > > past. > > > > Use cmake.. you hair wont go grey, and you wont be pulling it out > > at every call to configure. No nasty spells required either. > > > > Craig > > The instructions for cmake describe a more complex and for me at least > confusing process than the traditional process. I recognize that the > developers see virtues in cmake. But perhaps after development is > completed the install process could be boiled down to the usual > method for us busy folks that keep many Open Source products on our > systems. If every product develops its own unique installation > software then life becomes unnecessarily complex. I have seen other > products (Inkscape as I recall) follow other paths looking for the > ideal installation system. But for the end user the ideal method is > something that works and is reasonably simple and universal.
Yes, and that is why Inkscape has started to migrate to Cmake as well. :) > Other Open Source products (e.g Gimp) compile and install nicely with > ./configure > make > make install > and have for many years. And Scribus used to. Hmm.. cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/path/whereyouwant/scribus make make install Not so complicated to me and the error messages are readable by mere humans. > > I keep multiple versions of Scribus installed by the simple expedient > of putting the source of each version in a separate directory and > renaming the executable of the older versions with e.g. scribus11. > So I don't see any virtue in cmake to the end user. > For starters: Faster Better clearer error messages Cross platform It works on Windows/OSX/Linux Easier to maintain for developers, so we can spend more time coding :) Prevents developers hair loss and temporary bouts of insanity. :) > After running > make -f Makefile.svn > Scribus 1.3.3.12 compiles but can't find its plugins on execution. > Given this degree of uncertainty I will stick with 1.3.3.11 as the > stable version and wait for the next major version. I have wasted too > much time on 1.3.3.12 already. It is only a minor release. <snipped> Excepting this issue, there are important fixes in 1.3.3.12. Peter
