[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: KDE3.1, qt3.0.5 and GCC3.2???



On Mon 11 Nov 2002 14:23, David Pashley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Monday 11 November 2002 2:00 pm, Giles Constant wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, John Gay wrote:
> > > I am getting ready to wipe my Debian Woody system and replace it with a
> > > self-compiled Linux including the latest bells-N-whistles I could find.
> >
> > If you want to compile your entire system up yourself, you might want to
> > look at gentoo (www.gentoo.org).  It's based on the BSD portage system,
> > so it compiles absolutely everything when you install it.
> >
> > It took me from 10am until about 2am to get my Athlon-XP 1.8 running KDE
> > from scratch, and it's still not quite how I want things, but it was
> > worth it :-)  Everything was compiled with gcc-3.2 and -mcpu=athlon-xp,
> > etc.
>
> apt-get install apt-src
> or
> apt-get install apt-build
>
Thats nice, except I want packages and things that are not available in 
Debian Woody due to the latency between releases!

I.E. KDE-3.1
XFree86-4.2.1
Accelerated X from XIG
KPovModeler
POV-Ray-3.5
Rosegarden-4

just to name a few. I am also looking forward to learning a lot along the 
way. I did a trial run with a spare box, the LFS tarball and XFree86 and 
KDE3.0Beta2 sources I had on a few DVD's. I was inpressed with the results 
and now have greater confidence in my abilities.

Don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed Debian emensely. The apt tools are second 
to none! Ease of administration has helped my play with Linux before I fully 
understood it. And I have learned a lot of good lessons following the various 
Debian mailing lists.

However, the slow release cycle has allways kept me wishing for more 
up-to-date apps. I've also tinkered with both testing and unstable and have 
suffered many set-backs as a result. Thanks to the great Debian supporters on 
hte various lists, I've always managed to recover but I feel I'm not 
completely in control and my system seems to run many things for no apperent 
reason?

Because of these reasons, I've decided to re-build my system from source. 
I've still got Debian on my Daughters PC and that will be staying and 
updating. I'll also continue recommending Debian to anyone who wants to get 
to know Linux.

Thanks for the info, but my original questions remain unanswered.
<QUOTE>
 Hasso Tepper <hasso@estpak.ee> wrote:
John Gay wrote:
> I'll be building KDE3.1 once it's released, scheduled for Monday,
> the 11th. The latest I heard was that GCC3.2, KDE3.1 and trolltechs
> qt3.0.5 did not play together well, and that KDE's qt-copy should
> be used instead. Is this still the case? Is this likely to change
> soon?

KDE 3.1 will require qt-3.1.
</QUOTE>

I am guessing that any existing problems are/will be sorted out for hte 
release?

<QUOTE>
I'l also be building KOffice1.2, the latest stable version, but KDevelop is 
giving me pause for thought.

I know that KDevelop2.x has stopped development and that Gideon is the next 
version as KDevelop3.0. What has been peoples experiences with both of these 
on KDE3.0? Is Gideon a fast moving target that I would be better to wait for 
the stable release? Is the stable version of KDevelop good for KDE3.1 
development? 

Last time I looked at KDevelop, the documentation was seriously out-of-date. 
Has this been worked on?
</QUOTE>

This question has not been approached as far as I have seen? Basically it's 
two parts.
1) Should I stick to the latest stable version of KDevelop or is Gideon 
usable for someone just learning to program?
2) The Documentation for the version on my box,
Qt: 2.3.1
KDE: 2.2.2
KDevelop: 2.1.2
is seriously out-of-date. Most of it still describes developing KDE1 apps? 
Has this improved in either new versions? I'm most interested in the 
tutorials as I hope to one day write my own KDE application.

Again, thank you for all your valuable input and all the work you do to try 
to keep Debian as cutting edge as the release cycle allows.

Cheers,

	John Gay



Reply to: