Re: why is gtk install so difficult?
- From: Andreas Kostyrka <andreas mtg co at>
- To: Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS <ruben mrbrklyn com>
- Cc: Murray Cumming Comneon com, dlloyd microbits com au, learfox twu net, gtk-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: why is gtk install so difficult?
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:53:59 +0200
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 05:58:46AM -0400, Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS wrote:
> > Compiling anything from source can be difficult. Jhbuild and garnome make it
> > much easier.
> > But still it's only something that developers of GTK+ should need to do.
> > Other people don't need to compile from source. I see no problem.
> > If your disribution makes it difficult to install something, then it's a
> > problem with the distribution.
> This is a very poor excuse and neede not be true. Nearly every important
> package on my system is installed with autoconf and make, without trouble,
> from sendmail, bind, apache, Perl, X, etc etc etc.
> GTK is only hard to compile and install by hand because the developers have
> chosen to make it so. Originally, it was no problem. Even compiling just
> Balsa now with the aspell libraries is a nightmare.
How have the developers chosen to make it so? I just wonder? Actually it
got easier (because of the tools) locally, but the global picture is
that it's harder, because there are more dependencies. Well Gtk2.4 has
just bigger on the functionality scale, so it's ok that it needs more
> This has nothing to do with the distribution. It's not the fault of the
> distribtuion. It has nothing to do with the distribution.
Yes it has got something to do with the distribution. One would expect
that the distribution has a upgrade system in place that makes
installing new versions of gtk painless ;)
There is really no need for a developer who doesn't modify Gtk (which is
most) to recompile it. If he so chooses it's fairly trivial, beside
needing many dependencies.
] [Thread Prev