Jared Rhine wrote:
Heikki> We should have at least one maximally usable binary
Heikki> installer available (in addition to the source method).
Could you outline the reasoning for this requirement? I don't believe
this is an obvious conclusion, in the Linux world at least. In the
Mac/Windows world, it is such a #1 high-priority requirement as to be
obvious.
The reason for this is that this would be the option for distributions
that don't include Chandler for some reason, as well as for those that
prefer to get the program directly from the source (OSAF).
Heikki> Chandler is not yet ready to be effectively packaged in this
Heikki> manner. We simply require too many slightly-changed
Heikki> "standard packages".
Anecdotally, since I'm not on a Fedora desktop and am not willing to
build "slight modified" versions of any libraries if the process isn't
automated, I'm currently without Chandler experience (on Linux) and am
not a contributing member of the community.
It is actually automated. Our full build instructions will get you a
fully working Chandler with all the slightly modified libs built. The
modified libs should stay in the Chandler build environment and not mess
up your system.
http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Chandler/BuildingChandler#fullbuild
[Deleted lots of good suggestions, and things I agree with.]
May I also suggest (probably redundantly) that CSG should be solicited
for platform desires and their needs given heavy weight. You have the
blessing of a clear client, and clients' needs can be wonderfully
focusing. They may not have any clear Linux desktop needs, though.
Yes, we definitely need to get input from our university customers as
well. We have a meeting coming up in a couple of weeks.
--
Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
