Re: Whats missing from Gnome3
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:25 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > > I have used alien and been into the guts of it and after really
> > > > wanting it to work I was always disappointed. It sounds like a cool
> > > > idea. I wanted it to work. But it just can't work perfectly because
> > > > packages from different systems have different policies. The tool
> > > > can't be smart enough to understand the policies of both systems and
> > > > do the right thing in a sentient way. It is the policy differences
> > > > that case the problems. That doesn't mean that there are some good
> > > > examples where it works fine though.
> >
> > Using alien I got the 32-bit lightscribe driver, 32-bit SimpleLabeler
> > and Lacie's 32-bit 4l running on my 64-bit testing.
>
> That's great! Happy it worked for you. I didn't say it didn't ever
> work. I said that *I* always ran into cases where it didn't work due
> to policy differences between the distributions.
>
> But without looking at the components you mentioned I will dare to say
> that I am sure that the alien installed packages are still not in any
> way up to the install quality levels expected from a native Debian
> package. I bet that if I looked at the way that alien ended up
> installing them on a system that I wouldn't be happy with it.
>
> > Building packages with checkinstall instead of installing software by
> > make install works for RPM and DEB based systems.
> > Hence compiling FLOSS might be smarter than using RPM for Debian.
>
> Often very true. Often it is easier to build and install to
> /usr/local initially and then clean that up later when a nice packaged
> version shows up. For many tools and utilities that works out great.
>
> However for components such as GNOME that are large and somewhat
> involved that is easier said than done. It isn't too terribly hard to
> build it. Especially if you start with the packaged versions and work
> from there. But it isn't completely trivial either.
>
> > Sometimes checkinstall don't build a package, e.g. if scons is used,
> > anyway, usually it does what it should do, you hardly will find exotic
> > scons stuff and similar.
>
> I take it that you had a bad experience with a scons package? I
> haven't used scons but if it didn't build then there would probably be
> help available for it.
>
> Bob
Yes, building GNOME would be too time consuming.
Compiling with scons is ok here, but automagically building packages
isn't possible for me.
- Ralf
Reply to: