Re: GNOME vs GNU gcc & glibc

[Sergio Brandano <sb dcs qmw ac uk>]

 Hi,

>>The core of GNOME is three tarballs:
>>  gnome-libs
>>  gnome-core
>>  mc

 gnome-libs is not self-contained. My gnome-libs is built on top of a
 number of other tarballs, including the followings:

 gmp-2.0.2
 zlib-1.0.8
 libpng-1.0.3
 freetype-1.1
 audiofile-0.1.6
 esound-0.2.8
 gsl-0.4.1
 imlib-1.9.4
 glib-1.2.1
 gtk+-1.2.1
 gtk-engines-0.5
 fnlib-0.4
 enlightenment-0.15.4
 ORBit-0.4.2
 GNU grep-2.3b
 DocBook dsssl (db1.37)
 gtk-doc-0.1
 libaudiofile-0.1.5

 If you count them, they are 18.

>> Having them separate allows for easier upgrading.

 ... easier? I spent one worth week installing GNOME!!! 

> Yes, I made my attempt to install GNOME in /sw/gnome, and I reported
> the problems I encountered. The X11 comes clean into his very own
> /usr/X11R6, so why not having something like /usr/GNOME ?

>If we used a default of /usr/GNOME, than you would have to edit your
>system configuration just to run GNOME.  That's fine for people like
>you and I who deliberately put GNOME out of the way, but not for
>someone who is learning the system and doesn't even know how to change
>the default.

 Does X11 requires it? No, it does not; in fact the distributions now
 come ready with it.

 Would you like to have the next RedHat or Slackware with GNOME
 installed in /usr/local?

>> The additional advantage for doing this is that, like Xfree98, one can
>> download the official (and tested) binary, and use it withouth bothering
>> too much about which compiler, which libs etc.

>I don't know about XFree98, but XFree86 supports many fewer platforms than
>GNOME does.  Nobody has the equipment to produce binaries for every
>platform GNOME supports.  Nor do we want to pick favorites, and only
>release "official" binaries for a few favorite systems.  Therefore, we
>release tarballs, any binary release is unofficial, and we rely on
>volunteers to produce the binaries.

 Ok, point taken for the binaries.
 Still the sources need to be self-contained.

 Sergio