On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Lee Bengston wrote:
> http://www.xastir.org/wiki/index.php/HowTo:Ubuntu_8.10
>
> Enjoy - hope this helps some folks out.
>
Yes, thank you, it did indeed get me going!
I wanted to keep it as simple as possible, yet give me a more up-to-date
install than the distribution package. I opted to compile from the latest
stable tarball, using the distribution libraries if at all possible to
minimize breakage in other applications.
I was getting 'undeclared variable' errors in map_tif.c during the make,
and posting the error here elicited no responses, but your comment about
Ubuntu's 'non-standard' installation of the geotiff library, and the
configure workaround got me past that one.
However, when I first launched xastir, it barfed on a missing file:
XReadBitmapFile() failed: Bitmap not found?
/usr/share/xastir/symbols/2x2.xbm
...thinking this may be a similar issue, I browsed until I found the file
in /usr/local/share/...
I then deleted the .xastir directory under my home directory, so that
xastir would build a new one upon launch. Sure enough, it worked!
So, this leaves me with a few questions/suggestions:
1) Maybe your wiki entry could add a comment about renaming or removing
the .xastir subdirectory in the section about 'if you've already installed
the distributed version'.
2) I don't want to start a pissing contest, but why the talk about
'non-standard' locations for library and application installs? Ubuntu as
well as Fedora and SuSE all claim to be 'FSB compliant' (or LSB compliant,
some days I can't keep my acronyms straight). Who's "right"?
Would it be possible to amend the configure script to search the Ubuntu
install locations as well as the Fedora/Suse ones? I would consider the
current situation a bug, in that configure without the override did detect
the presence of libgeotiff, but did not configure the compile for the
correct location. It would seem to me that it should configure for its
actual location, or report it as not found.
...and finally, I have a question that is more Debian/ubuntu related than
xastir per se. Somewhere, I heard mention of a script that would build a
simple 'package' from a tarball-compiled application, so that the apt
database can be aware of the files that were installed. Would it be
possible to add a target to the makefile like 'make debinstall' that would
invoke such a script and perform the install in a way that would minimize
potential future adverse interactions with distribution package installs
and upgrades.
--
Rick Green, N8BJX
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
_______________________________________________
Xastir mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
