+1 to switching to Ubuntu as our supported Linux distro +1 to putting energy into using already installed libraries and applications on Linux if we think this is actually achievable for 0.7 on Ubuntu
Sincerely, Jeffrey Heikki Toivonen wrote: > Until now we have done most of our development and testing on Fedora > Core Linux. The FC 2 we've been using is quite outdated by now. We've > also found that keeping FC system up to date, and upgrading to newer FC > versions can be quite a bit of work. This is just to say it's again time > to think about our Linux story. > > First of all, I do think it is beneficial to have one official Linux > version which is supported by IT, so there is the question of which > distribution should we choose for general, IT-supported Linux platform. > > My first suggestion would be to go with Ubuntu. It is a distribution > growing very fast in following, it has active corporate backer and it > just seems to work well. Many people at OSAF already use it. Since it's > Debian based, keeping an Ubuntu system up to date and even upgrading it > to newer versions is easy. > > My main reservation against Ubuntu is that it is lacking in some > developer tools and some more esoteric programs. With this I mean the > binaries available in the package database - one can of course always > get the sources and build. One such missing piece is KCachegrind which > is a nice program to analyze profile runs visually. If we could find an > easy way to get all the dev tools on Ubuntu, this wouldn't be an issue. > > Anybody have other viable suggestions (I think we want to stick to some > popular distribution)? Votes for or against Ubuntu? > > > In 0.7 we should also take a more careful look at how we distribute > Chandler on Linux. Ideally with modern package systems we'd have > Chandler rely on packages already on the system (or installed because of > marked dependencies). > > To make this possible we need to do some work with our build system. The > actual packaging of Chandler could be done by volunteers already > familiar with the packaging systems of their platforms. This starts > making sense now that Chandler is actually becoming usable. > > I've also been keeping an eye on some new/unusual packaging systems on > Linux which we might want to try out. For example, there is Klik which > resembles the OSX system in the sense that you make a disk image of > everything your program needs, and mount that to run the program. This > means you avoid much of the hassle of library version mismatches. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list > http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
