(Un)fortunately I fully tend to agree with you. It seems that after 2.03 it really becomes a PITA to compile (OMG) and start GnuGK. IMHO, the fault is not to be put completely on GnuGK. Those who have created Pwlib and Openh323, have had a little experience in packaging and Linux directory structure. Up to now I still can not understand why the heck the sources have to reside in /root ????????????????????????????????????????? Therefore up to now almost noone can compile pwlib+openh323+gnugk 2.04 from RPMs. There is no any info about the dependencies the posted binary versions of GnuGK rely on, like ssl, glibc and etc... ... I bet my head that 98% of the GnuGK users will be not able to start binary versions of GnuGK (for Linux). I do not know how it goes with Windows. Is anyone here running GnuGk 2.04 on Windows? However instead of blaming everyone, it is a good idea to start collecting and building a FAQ + a good installation tutorial. On Tuesday 24 June 2003 00:49, Adrian Golumbovici wrote: > Oh well... It would probably be a lesser PITA if the developer would be > more helpfull in here. No offense, but you will find less info in this > mailinglist than any other. Most times you will ask a question and you can > forget about getting an answer. And even the few answers you get are from > people trying to help with their minimal knowledge which will most times > end in not helping the person at all. Now don't get me wrong, this help is > welcome. I just mean that if the devs would get more involved in the > helping process, the participants would gather more knowledge and at one > point they could do a real competent help by themselves. Untill then is > just help from people who managed to solve some of the problems which they > encountered... Also it would have been nice if the developers would include > in the project the pwlib and openh323 sources (like many projects do with > their > dependencies) which they used when developing, so we would get less > compatibility probs. Also writing in the docs such info as "remove your > previous libs before compiling the new ones" and other answers to questions > which appeared in this mailinglist would have been better. I know it can > also be a PITA to keep your docs updated and cover all, and most projects > haven't got a complete doc and faq, but at least they are helping in the > mailinglist... No offense ment, but this mailinglist reminds me of the > times when linux was just for the "guru's" and if you were a mere "mortal" > trying to learn it, you would be ignored... I have now 2 years of > constantly working with linux and compiling for it behind me, and I > appreciate the developers, but providing a product with no support > whatsoever beside a cryptic manual... Even the manual is based on the fact > that you have knowledge of h323 protocol and it's dependencies/specifics... > Sorry, but most people trying to use it have no clue of h323 beside the > fact that they need a proxy for it so they can use NM from behind a > firewall... ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ List: Openh323gk-users@lists.sourceforge.net Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id…49 Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/
