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.
