Gregory, I committed the initial proposed damn simple change since it makes things slightly better. I am also open for discussions :)
On the 0x3D0 day of Apache Harmony Egor Pasko wrote: > On the 0x3D0 day of Apache Harmony Gregory Shimansky wrote: > > On 18 января 2008 Egor Pasko wrote: > > > On the 0x3CF day of Apache Harmony Gregory Shimansky wrote: > > > > Egor Pasko said the following on 18.01.2008 17:47: > > > > >> In the docs it should be written that if some header ... is not > > > > >> present, it the package x11proto-xext-dev should be installed, > > > > >> otherwise it may confuse people who are using distros that provide > > > > >> this header in other package. > > > > > > > > > > Igor Stolyarov said in FC it is the same, Debian has the same. Why > > > > > bother? gentoo? :) > > > > > > > > Well, as I've written, it doesn't exist on SuSE too. > > > > > > I suggest to put at most 2 columns: for rpm-based and for apt-based > > > distros. Installing all packages is quick and easy, while > > > checking/installing by header is not. > > > > Well. I think that there should be a note about Debian based distros (since > > apt as well as rpm are just package managers and may be used across > > different > > distributions). That should include Ubuntu, Kubuntu and other flavors of > > Debian (unless they decide to split packages on their own accord). BTW are > > you sure that this x11proto-xext-dev is not Ubuntu specific and is actually > > required on Debian too? > > Judging by [1] it is required in Debian. OK, mentioning Debian-based > instead of apt-based is a good point. > > > Saying this, the instructions of every possible Linux distro in the world > > are > > going to be hard to write. Versions change, packages are split, merged back > > and renamed with different names, there is never going to be a perfect > > instruction, especially considering the lag of the site and documentation > > after the real state of things. > > > > I think the instruction should name the groups of packages by origin like > > > > X11 with all of its extensions and development packages > > libpng with all of its development packages > > libjpeg with all of its development packages > > liblcms with all of its development packages > > libxml2 with all of its development packages > > ..and do not forget to mention, dynamic or static libs, and if static > then fPIC on x86_64, (also IPF, PPC), what else? :) > > > and so on. > > I do not want an absolutely correct instruction like this. liblcms > could be split or merged with something else. No guarantee here as > well as in package names. And finally, such instruction is not very > usable. > > Giving package names is useful for a wide audience. And those > instructions that are there now (gy Geir?) helped me to set up my new > system very quickly without searching/detecting how the packeges are > named. > > So, if we want to be absolutely precise, let's put it like this: > > 1. here is the set of packages one needs to install for popular > Debian-based distributions (Ubuntu, Knoppix, Linspire...) > > 2. here is the set for the RPM-based (Fedora, Mandriva, ALT, ...) > > 3. and here is the complete list of headers/libs requirements for the curious > > does it suit well? I will support list (1) then. > > > You and me would understand what it means. New developers would ask > > questions > > on dev list in any case, and this is not bad IMHO. > > Asking questions is good, but many of newbies do not like to go this > list to ask starter questions. And I can understand them. So, let's > make the process of joining the fun as smooth and trivial as possible > (for most popular distros:) let's welcome developers instead of > showing how complex and difficult we can be. > > [1] http://packages.debian.org/sid/all/x11proto-xext-dev/filelist > > -- > Egor Pasko > > -- Egor Pasko
