-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1 for Ubuntu Breezy
If you include the Ubuntu universe repository, you will get kcachegrind.
Ted
On Dec 6, 2005, at 10:39 AM, 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 The FC 2 we've been using is quite outdated by now.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.
--
Heikki Toivonen
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
- ----
Ted Leung Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
PGP Fingerprint: 1003 7870 251F FA71 A59A CEE3 BEBA 2B87 F5FC 4B42
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFDlgpnvrorh/X8S0IRAqDRAKD1AfP7b4UPD8JQLIgC1PXSgCslcgCeKQym
VRGTXPs6dQmnfDWmPIyfuio=
=wInQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
