Feel free to provide it :-)
Le lundi 19 décembre 2005 à 10:18 -0800, Hex Star a écrit : > Or perhaps they could consider having you download a install.sh file, > and when run it would first check to see if you meet the dependencies > and if not it would download and install the dependencies for you from > your distros download location and then it would download and install > the latest version of GnomeMeeting... > > On 12/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:21PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Content-Description: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35 > > > From: Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: [GnomeMeeting-list] Why all the [EMAIL PROTECTED](*& dependencies > > > I can understand why it was useful at one time to have all these > > > libraries. > > > Storage was expensive, etc. But now, storage is dirt cheap. So can > > > someone > > > give me a rational explanation as to why developers simply don't include > > > everything needed in the packages they produce? For example, if I recall > > > correctly, Opera comes in two flavours - statically linked and dynamically > > > linked. The statically linked package is somewhat larger, but so what? > > > > In a multitasking environment it makes sense to have as much code as > > possible to be shared between other applications. Just think if every > > GNOME program would be statically linked and you would be (not even > > knowinig) a heavy GNOME user. You would easily need gigabytes of RAM memory > > just in a normal office or home computer, or otherwise the system would swap > > intolerably much often. > > > > But I do agree the dynamic linking strategies should somehow be done > > somehow alot easier. It is not a big problem to use some good > > distribution and install packages and dependencies from that same > > distribution, but compiling some CVS code with all the dependencies is > > a huge task sometimes. One of the best examples is to compile MPlayer > > with all its features from the CVS version. > > > > Ofcourse developers could make it make more sense, if for example they > > would use RPM source packages to distribute also developer and experimental > > versions and would always also keep the source library dependencies > > updated. But very very seldom I see correct use of "BuildRequires:" > > fields in any RPM spec file. In a long run I think it would save even > > time when done routinely. But it would require that also library and > > other upstream developers would be as conscientious. Also some > > Freedesktop Project or Linux Standard Base should "enforce" more > > strictly how packages should be named between different distributions. > > > > < http://www.fedora.us/docs/rpm-packaging-guidelines.html#buildrequires > > > > > // jouni > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GnomeMeeting-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list > > > _______________________________________________ > GnomeMeeting-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list -- _ Damien Sandras (o- //\ GnomeMeeting: http://www.gnomemeeting.org/ v_/_ FOSDEM 2006 : http://www.fosdem.org SIP Phone : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ GnomeMeeting-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
