Hi All, I'm glad this thread of e-mails got GAF out of hibernation ;-)
I agree with John. I think that it would be a good start for all of us to report on which [*nix, windoze, pristine, out of the box, patches, upgrades, service packs ... etc] OS-distros the new released set of tarballs compiles into [executables, packages]. Even the message that stuff compiles without problems has value that can be shared with developers. With an inventory of all this, we could shed a light on b) without testing (which is cumbersome for the average user). I'm stil running geda-20030921 on a [EMAIL PROTECTED]/80MB on RH7.0 patched with all updates, and geda-20040111 on RH7.3 patched with all updates on a [EMAIL PROTECTED]/256MB because of guile RPM dependency problems. I would like to get this into sync. OK, I think that "make all" would do the trick, but then again, why have (RPM and friends) packages. Just my EUR 0.01. Kind regards, Bert Timmerman. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Sheahan Sent: donderdag 30 december 2004 11:27 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: gEDA: Some suggestions Karel Kulhavy wrote: > > > It is necessary to write: > a) What are the gEDA's requirements on the system > b) How do I test if my system fullfills them (step-by-step guide) > c) How do I convert non-compliant system into a compliant one (step-by-step > guide) surely in the general case option (c) is hard to write. Getting a slackware 1.0 system to be 'compliant' would be a hard document to write and debug. Perhaps a list of systems install is tested/not hard on would be more practical. Even more practical, doing packages for apt and/or yum - which take out some of the pain here. john
