gnome1.4-libs and packages...

Blaasvis · 2003-01-20 10:48:09

our discusion over gnome1.4 started here :
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=151

so i decided too package gnome1.4 libs..
you will find them here ftp.archlinux/incoming/gnome1.4 :!:

i'll start working on programs for gnome1.4, if you have any question or suggestions.
please relpy here

i will start working on gtk-perl as requested and evolution. 8)

sarah31 · 2003-01-20 15:06:14

you do realize they have begun to port evolution to gnome2?

Blaasvis · 2003-01-20 15:15:45

i know but i don't think they will port it fast, as soon as it is there i will created a gtk2 package.
i will do it for every package i create against gtk1. and i am almost done with evolution already it took me a few hours...
it wasn't hard

sarah31 · 2003-01-20 15:16:55

you will not have to do the gtk2 that is the responsibility of the gnome maintainer

Blaasvis · 2003-01-20 15:21:07

why hasn't balsa been created then ?

my guess is that the maintainer has got his hands full only on the base of gnome 2....

Blaasvis · 2003-01-20 16:13:49

i just uploaded evolution too incoming......
to prove it that it works here is a screenshot
here

sarah31 · 2003-01-20 17:12:53

because balsa is not as popular as say evolution as a matter of fact i know very few people that use it at all. i see mentioned rarely. so likely it was not even considered by the gnome developer at the time.

what's the deal with the attitude anyway? are you trying to insinuate that the developers here are lazy or not very good? there are reasons we did not make the gnome 1.4 packages. as a matter of fact none of the developers are keen about having gnome 1.4 packages around. Myself, i don't appreciate being made out to be a villian. gnome 1.4 is ancient history in my books gtk-perl died in 2001 and though a working vwersion of gtk2-perl exists the developers of drip and dvd::rip still insist on using the ancient and very depreciated version 1.

i appreciate the enthusiasm you have to make packages but i really disapprove of the willingness to snub the developers. remember if you want your packages in the trees you have to be respectful to myself and the other developers.

Blaasvis · 2003-01-20 18:02:14

i think you guys did a great job...... i just mean that a lot of packages exist and that a couple of main developers cannot take care of everything them self......
at the moment i have a lot of spare time so i just want to invest it to improve arch linux.......
i builded the gnome1.4 libs because i needed them..... and now i just share them with the rest of the world.....
if any one has a task for me i will look into it....

a distro should have as much packages as possible...... so nobody will be able to maintain all packages alone.

even not so very wel know packages should be made in packages and build files.

BluPhoenyx · 2003-01-20 19:23:58

Blaasvis wrote:

a distro should have as much packages as possible......
even not so very wel know packages should be made in packages and build files.

Why??? Think about it before answering, please. IMHO, that's part of the problem with all of the main distributions now. They offer so much that users can't figure out which to use. I've installed quite a few distro's over the years and it's been my experience that the average user only runs about 15 to 20 percent of the software available.

Perhaps as an optional offering where the packages are made available separate from the standard and even the unofficial areas. Maybe even a new group for 'unsupported' or 'user-contributed' packages.

One point I was trying to make in a previous post on this subject, ANY user can make packages AND make them available on the web via ftp. They simply need to create the packages, put them on an ftp server and announce them to the AL world. Users could then access the site with pacman for automatic setup or add the file to their own local archives. This is a simplistic description of the process but basically, accurate.

Having said all that, I will agree that there should be a lot of applications compiled and packaged for AL. I think that eventually the user base will have grown and this will happen automatically. I just don't want to see the AL distribution suffer from package clutter just because someone thinks a package should exist. It's already getting difficult enough to keep track of the offerings available in the unofficial tree now.

Blaasvis · 2003-01-20 19:37:18

The reason why a distro must have choice is very simpel. i want to have the choice of apps too use.... if i don't like mozilla because it's too slow.... now days i can go for Phoenix and galeon.

most of the linux users love the choice between gnome, kde,flubox or windowmaker and many more.
if you look at Suse they almost force new users to start using kde...... i don't think that's right.

the nice thing about archlinux is that you wont have too install all the apps if you don't want evolution or gnome, you don't have too install it.

[ontopic] i just upload some new versions and gnumeric now all parts are fully up-to-date next thing will be made sure that the menu items are added to gnome2[/ontopic]

Arielext · 2003-01-20 21:30:54

There is something to say for both,

One of the main powers of Arch is that it's so slim. Imho the install cd is way to bloated already, just go for the base packages on the install cd and give the users a second cd / unofficial to extend their Arch.

To give the users choice the unofficial tree has to be as large as possible, including deprecated software, who knows what users want?

But on the other side, don't make them lazy. If they want Gnome 0.3 let them download and install and make the packages themselves.
The unofficial stuff is working, but all need to remember to upload their packages.

apeiro · 2003-01-21 01:09:12

BluPhoenyx wrote:

One point I was trying to make in a previous post on this subject, ANY user can make packages AND make them available on the web via ftp. They simply need to create the packages, put them on an ftp server and announce them to the AL world. Users could then access the site with pacman for automatic setup or add the file to their own local archives. This is a simplistic description of the process but basically, accurate.

This is exactly what pacman's multi-repository support is for. You'll all notice that there is a /usr/bin/gensync script included with pacman that will generate a pacman sync database from a package tree. You can use this to create a functional repository from /usr/abs/local or wherever you keep your custom PKGBUILDs.

You'll also notice (well maybe not, this isn't documented) that there is a Packager field in the -Qi output from pacman. This can be customized by the package builder when they use makepkg. Just export the PACKAGER environment variable before building packages.

# export PACKAGER="John Doe <jdoe@example.com>"
# makepkg

If somebody really wants to make some packages and make them available to other archers, they don't need my permission to do it (or anyone's). Put your packages on an ftp site and post the url on the board for other archers to see. If a lot of them like it and find your repository useful, then we can list it on www.archlinux.org.

This seems like an ideal solution to me. Users who want unsupported packages can get them, and the rest of us don't have to change anything to avoid them. Everyone's happy.

Blaasvis · 2003-01-21 07:08:21

well i made a stupid mistake..... :oops: if you want to run evolution you the gconf1.4-r1 package not release 2 it is gconf2 i never looked at until this morning
if anyone can delete them for the ftp i would like that

Blaasvis · 2003-01-22 09:29:46

thx for deleting it sarah31....
yesterdat i created a package for gtetrinet... it also has been uploaded in incoming.
today the update versions of evolution, gnumeric and sodipodi will be uploaded these will have menu items for gnome 2

hab1t · 2003-01-23 04:36:34

i think the only person with a bad attitude here is sarah31
maybe you are used to people complaining or whining or being critical but i would say all the arch users here are being 100% supportive and positve and it my feeling you can relax and be a little less defensive, i did not see any kind of bad attitude in any of the posts on gnome 1.4 yet, but i could see how they could be interpreted as such if you were expecting criticism.
we all support the archlinux developers, all of them!
---

because balsa is not as popular as say evolution as a matter of fact i know very few people that use it at all. i see mentioned rarely. so likely it was not even considered by the gnome developer at the time.

what's the deal with the attitude anyway? are you trying to insinuate that the developers here are lazy or not very good? there are reasons we did not make the gnome 1.4 packages. as a matter of fact none of the developers are keen about having gnome 1.4 packages around. Myself, i don't appreciate being made out to be a villian. gnome 1.4 is ancient history in my books gtk-perl died in 2001 and though a working vwersion of gtk2-perl exists the developers of drip and dvd::rip still insist on using the ancient and very depreciated version 1.

i appreciate the enthusiasm you have to make packages but i really disapprove of the willingness to snub the developers. remember if you want your packages in the trees you have to be respectful to myself and the other developers.

hab1t · 2003-01-23 05:34:14

on trying to install evolution i get the error that soup is an unmet dependency of gtkhtml, and i cannot find any soup packages anywhere

also, trying to install gnome-vfs package gets me gnome-vfs-2 from the stable tree

*anxious to run evolution*

sarah31 · 2003-01-23 06:09:24

hab1t wrote:

i think the only person with a bad attitude here is sarah31
maybe you are used to people complaining or whining or being critical but i would say all the arch users here are being 100% supportive and positve and it my feeling you can relax and be a little less defensive, i did not see any kind of bad attitude in any of the posts on gnome 1.4 yet, but i could see how they could be interpreted as such if you were expecting criticism.
we all support the archlinux developers, all of them!

thanks. if you knew what had been happening prior to the events of my post you would easily see the posts by Blaasvis and co. as insinuating that the unofficial developers (of which i am one) were not fulfilling the users desires.

there is a wealth of reasons jk and myself do/did/will not want to maintain gnome 1.4 packages. Blaasvis assumed, wrongly, that Elanthis would/will not be making a Evolution package for GTK2. Then used the example of balsa not being in the trees as an example.

previous to this one of the former developers returned upon request only to leave a day later after posting an angry email to apeiro as to why he left. in that mail he basically took shots at the whole development team for commiting unstable packages. most of the example he brought up were biulds he had made and supposedly had intestively locally tested.

this was a large contributor to my sour mood.

if you think i have a bad attitude try spending 8 hours or more taking building, testing, and committing over three hundered program to what once was a laughable unofficial tree. i i did that for nearly two weeks straight. I have spent, combined, near 48 hours working on getting an optimized OpenOffice built from source. in the last two night this has included making a PAM package for the sole purpose of building OO, installing blackdown's sdk for javac. 6 hours trying to figure out how to fix a bison error and now i am trying to figure out the proper way to patch the OO src files to use libstdc++.so.5 and not libstdc++.so.3.

after all this people still like to make you feel bad for NOT including something. sometime they even complain about items being there.

so needless to say i was very frustrated at the time the Blaasvis and co posted their gnome related comments.

anyway.

as for your evolution problem i can't speeak to that yet as i have yet to install and test the gnome one packages. the one thing i anm wondering is if you might not have used the wrong option when installing gnome-vfs? none of the gnome 1.4 libraries/packages are in the trees right now (and won't be for a little while yet) so you obviously must download untar and pacman -A Blaasvis' packages from the incoming ftp tree. one thing you could try is locally rebuilding the gtkhtml package to se if that resolves your soup problem. if not you may have to search freshmeat or sourceforge or google for soup.

good luck!

Blaasvis · 2003-01-23 06:50:31

no it is my error i forgot soup to upload there are a few more problems with the packages...
i have upped the soup package...

i need too look at a the depencies and building way's after reinstalling the packages i made a list what went wrong.... please help me and post your problems with the packages

hab1t · 2003-01-23 14:08:39

ok well thanks for being helpful to me and everyone else and i apologize if i was rude, you have been very helpful to me and everyone else in here and i don't mean to sound ungrateful

going to go try to get evolution running now
not that its any better than sylpheed -- but its much prettier

hab1t · 2003-01-23 14:29:32

when installing the orbit1 package i get the following error (not cut and pasted sorry)

sbin/ldconfig: option requires an argument -- r

hab1t · 2003-01-23 14:40:31

also, lets keep in mind arch linux is NOT for beginners
NO first time linux user or even linux newbie is gonna have any idea what to do at all with archliunx. these áverage users'you are talking about, i bet dont know how to make their own modules.conf, their own xinitrc, etc. i would guess most of them install arch, and immediately give up and go back to their mandrake/suse/redhat discs.
the rest persevere and become helpful productive arch linux users

hab1t · 2003-01-23 14:58:29

ok so i installed evolution and it didnt catch the dependencies on gdk-pixbuf1.4, gconf1.4, or gal.
also i had to add /opt/gnome1.4/bin to my path and /opt/gnome1.4/lib/pkgconfig to my pkgconfig file...

but it works!
shiny new evolution 1.2 is running happily on my system yay

some ideas tho, could you bundle all these gnome libs into a big blob that could be installed in one command like pacman -S gnome1.4
and then evolution sodipodi and gnumeric could all be separate packages
and could you maybe append the pkgconfig path and /opt/gnome1.4/bin paths to their respective places? maybe add them to /etc/rc.d/gnome.sh ?
or make a gnome1.4.sh?

gonna try to compile some gnome 1.4 progs!
ill let u know what i get in a bit...

hab1t · 2003-01-23 15:03:01

also grip and maybe some other programs need this little lib called libghttp

http://www.nostatic.org/grip/libghttp-1.0.9.tar.gz

theres the ver included on the grip page
compiles and installs with no probs maybe u want to make a package?

sarah31 · 2003-01-23 15:45:13

if Blaasvis does not get to these i will.

with respect to the ripper though might i suggest using rip from the unofficial tree. it is a console ripper but the commands are very easy and you will find it much much faster and less finicky than grip or ripperx.

to get the option list use the command "rip -h" (without the quotes of course. i can provide you an example of the command line i use and have in my menu.

Blaasvis · 2003-01-23 16:27:18

i am aware of all the problems.... this week will be not as productive as i hoped.... all dep's i need too check i have been working on the troubles... added a line to gnome.sh is a good idea, if the developers are oke with that i will change it...

Arch Linux

#1 2003-01-20 10:48:09

gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#2 2003-01-20 15:06:14

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#3 2003-01-20 15:15:45

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#4 2003-01-20 15:16:55

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#5 2003-01-20 15:21:07

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#6 2003-01-20 16:13:49

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#7 2003-01-20 17:12:53

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#8 2003-01-20 18:02:14

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#9 2003-01-20 19:23:58

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#10 2003-01-20 19:37:18

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#11 2003-01-20 21:30:54

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#12 2003-01-21 01:09:12

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#13 2003-01-21 07:08:21

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#14 2003-01-22 09:29:46

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#15 2003-01-23 04:36:34

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#16 2003-01-23 05:34:14

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#17 2003-01-23 06:09:24

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#18 2003-01-23 06:50:31

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#19 2003-01-23 14:08:39

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#20 2003-01-23 14:29:32

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#21 2003-01-23 14:40:31

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#22 2003-01-23 14:58:29

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#23 2003-01-23 15:03:01

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#24 2003-01-23 15:45:13

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

#25 2003-01-23 16:27:18

Re: gnome1.4-libs and packages...

Board footer