On 01 Jul 2006, at 15:07 , Ben Fowler wrote:
On 01/07/06, jiho <jo.irisson@...400...> wrote:
> On 01 Jul 2006, at 14:15 , Ben Fowler wrote:
>> On 26/06/06, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:
>>>> For Inkscape we're considering changing our required gtk/gtkmm
>>>> requirements from 2.4 to something newer (e.g. 2.8).
>> Mac OS X - fink has 2.4.9 in stable; anything more recent than
>> will cause disruption, I fear.
> That is true and to compile Inkscape on OS X you need Fink unstable
> anyway ...
J-o, I have, for a long time, been wondering about the correctness of
the "A full unstable fink installation" which occurs on our
CompilingMacOsX page. I was under the impression that a full unstable
installation of fink would be 'dogfood' and only be needed be fink
devs. Certainly, I have fink stable and have merely added the
necessary packages from unstable as I needed them. I am certainly not
going to suggest changing the wiki on a whim, but if there is some
definite reason why my approach was inferior, I would most seriously
consider changing it.
Actually this statement was there the first time I looked at the page
so I just took it for granted ;-)
my experience from Debian is that mixing distributions is "bad":
there is always a point where a version conflict can block your
system*. Fink looked a lot like Debian to me (well it's not as good
but still, the package management system is the same). Therefore, as
Inkscape definitely needs some packages from unstable, I just
switched completely to unstable. It implies a lot of compiling (in
particular for gtk) but you also get many packages that are not
available as binaries (i.e. not in the stable distrib). In addition
adding manually a package from unstable implies moving some info
files around and I didn't want to go into such things.
* when dependencies in packages are of the type foo needs bar >=
2.1.3 the worst that can happen is an unstable package which requires
many other unstable ones and forces you to switch completely to
unstable. the switch can be painful but you usually can do this.
things get nasty when dependencies are like: foo needs bar = 2.1.3.
Then imagine package bip in unstable needs bar 2.1.6. in order to
install bip you need to install bar 2.1.6 and therefore to uninstall
foo. But if many things depend on foo you'll need to uninstall them
too. If you let the system compute the dependencies it self you can
end uninstalling some important packages (like X for example) and
then just sit in front of a blinking console wondering: what have I
these are worst cases for sure and as fink is a parallel package
system on os x it won't as bad so I think in the end it is just a
matter of taste. I personally don't like moving info files around and
need many packages that are only in unstable. Hence my choice.
Windows, c'est un peu comme le beaujolais nouveau :
a chaque nouvelle cuvee on sait que ce sera degueulasse,
mais on en prend quand meme par masochisme.