Re: your mail

[Spauldo da Hippie Elf <spauldo geocities com>]

Yeah, this worked for me on Debian, only I decided to install a very base
system and build everything from there (including X, libXPM, libgr, and
all the niceties).

Not only does this get gnome to compile a lot easier, it gets rid of a lot
of the junk that your distro installs.  There's a lot of stuff that debian
installs that I never use, and have no intention of playing with.

Note that this isn't as much a problem with distros such as slackware,
that are less bloated (hope Patrick goes to libc6 soon...)

Spauldo

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 gnome-list@gnome.org wrote:

> I've noticed that people have a hard time installing gnome from the
> sources. But I've found the easy way. When I tried to install gnome a
> couple of days ago, it kept giving me some error that I knew nothing
> about and had no idea how to fix. Well I decided to completely
> re-install linux. After re-installing Red Hat 5.1(with no gnome stuff) I
> got all the sources from the CVS server. After about 4 hours of
> compiling(cause my computer is a little slow) All of the gnome sources
> were compiled and installed into my /gnome directory and all of
> enlightenment was installed as well. I even used egcs to optimize it.
> There were absolutely no problems. I pretty much compiled one part right
> after the other. So if you are having problems and don't care so much
> about your current installation, then re-installing linux is one way to
> make gnome installation easy.
> 
> A small complaint though. With a lot of the source code there are crap
> warnings. things ranging from unused variable, to possibly uninitialized
> variable. I hate these warnings. I realize that this is software that is
> under development, but these warnings take 3 seconds to fix. I think
> they should all be fixed. Another thing what is the AC_TRY_RUN warning
> about not being run with the default option for cross compilation. Is
> there a way to get fix those, cause there's an awful lot of 'em in some
> parts of the gnome compilation.


>From what I can tell, sometimes there is no way out of some of these
warnings.  I'm not much of a coder at all, so I may be wrong, but if you
_know_ a variable is not going to be used uninitialized, your compiler
doesn't necessarily know that.  

'course egcs is supposedly made to give you more warnings, to force you to
write "proper C" or somesuch.  Proper C don't work all the time if ya
gotta hack or kludge something to work.

Still can't figure out the thing with more { than } though...  you'd think
code that's unbalanced like that wouldn't compile.  

 > > -- Jason S. Moore

Spauldo

"Yeah, I used to be into necrophelia, bestiality and sadism, but then I
realized I was just flogging a dead horse."