Re: gEDA: A complaint about glib-2.6 in libgeda

[Steven Wilson <stevew-at-NOSPAMintrinsix_dot_com>]

Al Davis wrote:
> But they don't need to upgrade to the latest distro and version.  
> They only need to install the appropriate libraries, and 
> possibly a more recent compiler.  If they are building from 
> source, they can build the library from source too.
>
> Such an old system may not be a standard distro.  It is likely 
> that it has been updated many times, but not in an organized 
> way.  Even if it was a standard distro at the beginning you may 
> not recognize it as such now.  Besides, nobody in their right 
> mind would want to keep track of all 200 distros.
>   
(Other stuff deleted...)

Think about that in the context of this discussion Al. I think every one 
of your assumptions above is suspect from the point of view of a nominal 
"user" who doesn't know how, have a desire for, or even is allowed to 
upgrade a library or a compiler!  I've compiled GCC a couple times in my 
life - it isn't the usual type of thing a "user" who has an account on a 
machine at work does.  

For that matter - even compiling software is a highly dubious model for 
distribution to the "masses."  For goodness-sake, one of the BIG 
differentiators between the different distributions is HOW they 
distribute!  Their package manager is one of the areas of innovation 
that differentiates distributions.   Look at "Lindows" (or whatever 
they're called this week..)  They're ENTIRE novelty is the fact that 
they give you a base set of software then charge you a subscription fee 
to easily install other software out of their applications vault.

Now for my own two cents worth. I'm not a "casual" user. I've been 
around Linux since 1992. I can't tell you how many times I've been in 
"Library Hell" when trying to get something new running.  One of the 
HUGE culprits has consistantly been the gtk libraries and config files, 
and the applications configure scripts not finding the "latest" version 
I installed/compiled/whatever. 

With that said - I'm going to TRY and suggest a point of view that might 
help when trying to solve these issues. (I suspect this is going to be 
antithetical too ;-)  Anything that provides a COMPLETE package where 
you get everything with one down load, and you just do ./configure, 
make, make install is the world to aim for.  You take a snap shot of ALL 
the libraries used by your application - and you don't change them - 
EVER.  They are all included with the distribution of your software and 
you build on it.  Finally - you statically link everything.  This way 
it's completely stand-alone.

Now I realize this means that you get to take a snapshot of all the bugs 
too!  But then, every new release of software of any sort comes with 
it's own fixes and bugs doesn't it.

That's my two cents worth.

Steve Wilson