Marvin Dickens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wednesday 06 April 2005 21:37, Daniel Nilsson wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:27:15PM -0400, Marvin Dickens wrote: > > > The first time I installed gEDA (Two years ago...?...) I had a couple of > > > problems with dependencies. The majority were related to SuSE distro > > > centric issues with required gEDA dependencies. So, I fell back on > > > what I knew would work: Install all dependencies and Geda from source. > > > I've been installing gEDA from source ever since. My complaints regarding > > > gEDA dependencies are not related to dependency list as specified by > > > gEDA, but to the one thing every distro is guilty of: Bastardizing > > > libraries to fit market strategy de jour and/or political statements. I > > > say shame on the distro's (Commerical and non-commerical alike). > > > > Marvin, > > > > This may sounds ignorant, but I don't know what you are referring to > > here. I used SuSE many years ago myself, but have settled on > > Debian so maybe I have different experience they you do... > > > > How is market strategy related to bastardizing libraries ? I'm not > > saying it's not related, I just don't understand how it's related... > > There are lots of examples. The one that most people can relate to > is this what both RedHat and SuSE did with CDRecord.
The CDRecord debate is indeed a pretty ugly one, I don't know what RedHat and SuSE did but as far as I can tell Debian decided to go with the version that Linus Torvalds "fixed" himself. This after the long debate about kernel APIs between Linus and J�rg Schilling. But that's all related to what happened in the Linux kernel API and with ide-scsi going to the 2.6 Linux kernel, I thought you were talking about libraries such as glib and gtk+ that gEDA depends upon. I have never heard of a distribution that would alter these libraries beyond bugfixes to the point where you were better off compiling your own versions. -- Daniel Nilsson
