i generally have few problems compiling gnome related packages.
i pull everything out of cvs, it is a pain though, since you must
replace ever
Matthew Sayler wrote:
> I remember back in '99 when Todd Michael Greer wrote:
> > One of the reasons the distros exist is so that you can have a good OS
> > without having to compile everything yourself. Sure I could compile it
> > myself, but if RedHat (or Debian, or whoever I choose to trust) is willing
> > to do it for me, I can be doing something else instead. Compiling isn't
> > generally painful, but it's not particularly fun either.
>
> Yeah. Witness my trying to get Gnome 0.99.something to compile on
> Solaris. It's not so much that any one package is bad, but that
> there are about 3-4 dozen you have to do! Easy to get lost in
> the middle (or my case, stymied by one lib that wouldn't install
> (ORBit)). Not to mention that they say a full source compile
> of Gnome needs ~700 mb of scratch space. Yek.
>
> OTOH, compiles today are very straightforward, as a rule. Do NOT
> underestimate the impact of 1) GNU tools in general 2) gcc &
> autoconf in specific. Ahh autoconf. How I love you!
>
> Matt
>
> --
> /* Matt Sayler -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- atwork?astronomy:cs
> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mpsayler -- (512)471-7450
> Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? */
--
Tom Carlile [EMAIL PROTECTED]
software is already hobbled by it's secretive cathedral nature, but Microsoft
seems to have a corner on incompetent programming as well."
-- Chris DiBona from the introduction. (Open Sources, 1999 O'Reilly
and Associates)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
