why havent we made E17 archbinarys?
Because it's not easy to build. I tried once, but the tangled web of EFL inter-dependency and the lack of a good compile-in-this-order list quickly exhausted my patience. I'm still trying to sort it out, and I actually have pkgs for the first few, but I couldn't figure out what to build next, and by now, my checkout is outdated.
]]>The upcoming release of DR17 is still under development. As stated in the State of the E-nion document that was published in March 2003, the version presently in CVS was a glorified test app, and is now deprecated -- it will not compile against present versions of the Enlightenment libraries. Development is already underway for the real E17, now that most of the EFL libraries are getting to a mature stage.
The DR17 is now in early re-write, however it is nothing more than a code framework at this point, even if you did find the code it would only show you a dialog window. Nothing more. No menus, no controls, no anything. At this point, emphisis is still on developing the EFL, since that is the real power center of DR17
]]>we are cutting edge in desktop enviroments so i got to thinking why havent we made E17 archbinarys? i mean fluxbox has its _develepment binarys, gnome is cutting edge and so is kde.
well i have already started compiling now, and i will resport back when i get the main WM working, then i will post apps while they get compiled, but keep in mind the comp its compiling on is a ooooold pentium 400 celeron clocked to 450 *whohoo*
/skruw
ps. i would appriciate some help with third party dependencys.