Hi, On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:08 -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > I don't think it is worth it since you'd end up having to recreate a > packaging system -- complete with diffs, custom configuration args, > installation work-arounds, et cetera as it used more wide-spread. > I second that. > As a packages framework and package developer, I have seen numerous source > downloads that install to their own desired locations, overwrite files, > destroy configurations, have out-dated or non-standard autoconf > ./configure usage, etc. > And as a Linux user, I've seen that compiling a package from source is always *not* as simple as a: $ ./configure && make && sudo make install IMO, if the above set of commands do the job, then why to take the *trouble* of compiling from source? A binary package would do that for me. :) I (and I'm sure most other people) compile from source because I need all binaries and libs in one particular location (for easy removal and management) or behave in a particular manner. Both of these requirements are meant by providing required switches to ./configure. I don't think a GUI would help in such cases. :) Srinidhi. _______________________________________________ gnome-list mailing list gnome-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
