Building Gnome 2.28 under Slackware 13.0

James H. Markowitz :
> Has anybody succeeded building Gnome 2.28 under Slackware 13.0? I
> have looked into third party builds, but none of them are there yet and,
> at any rate, they seem to mess with Slackware too much for my taste
> (Dropline certainly does.)

I dropped Gnome after building it for several versions of Slack. A
couple of times I got Gnome working just in time for the next release of
Slack, which is just frustrating as hell.

> Is it really that difficult to build Gnome for Slackware? I don't
> care if it takes days, as long as the process is essentially automatic.

Then you're stuck waiting. Gware was quite good back in the day, but the
last time I used it was for 10.2 (I think). Best of luck though.

--
SEIZE LIBERTY

www.websterscafe.com

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:51:46 +0000, James H. Markowitz wrote:

> Has anybody succeeded building Gnome 2.28 under Slackware 13.0? I
> have looked into third party builds, but none of them are there yet and,
> at any rate, they seem to mess with Slackware too much for my taste
> (Dropline certainly does.)
>
> Is it really that difficult to build Gnome for Slackware? I don't
> care if it takes days, as long as the process is essentially automatic.
>
I have Dropline 2.26 On Slackware 12.2. My install consists of about
256 packages provided by Dropline, and 791 official (and other packages).
The package count plus all of the entanglements makes it difficult for
a single person to sort it out. As far as Dropline, IME, they make changes
to official packages as a last resort only. I think I will stick with
Slackwware 12.2 for a while, albeit with a few packages recompiled from
the source from 13.0, because Gnome is now working satisfactorily.

IMO, Gnome offers a very good and secure integrated environment.
The panel notifications, power, sound, VMWare apps, Lotus Notes 8.5, and X
lock (via runlevel 4) are all working well. I am sticking with certain
Slackware packages: Firefox, OpenOffice, wicd. wicd works better than
/etc/rc.d/rc.networkmanager. YMMV.

Here is a screenshot from a netbook, with wallpaper stolen from Fedora:
http://www.xmission.com/~ddmayne/slackware/ss.2009-09-20.01.png

The last 5% of a project takes the longest. The change to pulse audio and
policy kit are finally working acceptably.

--
Douglas Mayne

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:10:37 +0000, emmel wrote:

> Thus James H. Markowitz spoke:
>
>> Has anybody succeeded building Gnome 2.28 under Slackware 13.0? I
>> have looked into third party builds, but none of them are there yet
>> and, at any rate, they seem to mess with Slackware too much for my
>> taste (Dropline certainly does.)
>
> gsb-current has 2.28, I think. And the problem is that gnome does indeed
> need quite a few rebuild packages as it needs a bit of gnome
> compatibility here and a few libraries to link against there. Not to
> mention all that other support infrastructure junk.
>
>> Is it really that difficult to build Gnome for Slackware? I don't
>> care if it takes days, as long as the process is essentially automatic.
>
> IIRC the reason Pat dropped Gnome was the hassle of configuring and
> building all the /separate/ software packages Gnome is made up of.
> Unless something has _drastically_ changed there is no automatic way of
> doing this. And that's the reason why all the third party Gnome
> distributions are major multi-person projects (I think).

Indeed. It's also the reason why *ALL* of them are *ALWAYS* at least one
Gnome version behind, and often there is a new Slackware release more
often than a 3rd-party Gnome release. I'm a former Gnome user/fan, but
have given up on it because it's so far behind. Try Xfce instead.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Thus Dan C spoke:

> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:10:37 +0000, emmel wrote:
>
>> Thus James H. Markowitz spoke:
>>
>>> Has anybody succeeded building Gnome 2.28 under Slackware 13.0? I
>>> have looked into third party builds, but none of them are there yet
>>> and, at any rate, they seem to mess with Slackware too much for my
>>> taste (Dropline certainly does.)
>>
>> gsb-current has 2.28, I think. And the problem is that gnome does indeed
>> need quite a few rebuild packages as it needs a bit of gnome
>> compatibility here and a few libraries to link against there. Not to
>> mention all that other support infrastructure junk.
>>
>>> Is it really that difficult to build Gnome for Slackware? I don't
>>> care if it takes days, as long as the process is essentially automatic.
>>
>> IIRC the reason Pat dropped Gnome was the hassle of configuring and
>> building all the /separate/ software packages Gnome is made up of.
>> Unless something has _drastically_ changed there is no automatic way of
>> doing this. And that's the reason why all the third party Gnome
>> distributions are major multi-person projects (I think).
>
> Indeed. It's also the reason why *ALL* of them are *ALWAYS* at least one
> Gnome version behind, and often there is a new Slackware release more
> often than a 3rd-party Gnome release. I'm a former Gnome user/fan, but
> have given up on it because it's so far behind. Try Xfce instead.

Ah, you are right. gsb has actually 2.26.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:05:53 +0000, emmel wrote:

> Thus Dan C spoke:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:10:37 +0000, emmel wrote:
>>
>>> Thus James H. Markowitz spoke:
>>>
>>>> Has anybody succeeded building Gnome 2.28 under Slackware 13.0? I
>>>> have looked into third party builds, but none of them are there yet
>>>> and, at any rate, they seem to mess with Slackware too much for my
>>>> taste (Dropline certainly does.)
>>>
>>> gsb-current has 2.28, I think. And the problem is that gnome does
>>> indeed need quite a few rebuild packages as it needs a bit of gnome
>>> compatibility here and a few libraries to link against there. Not to
>>> mention all that other support infrastructure junk.
>>>
>>>> Is it really that difficult to build Gnome for Slackware? I don't
>>>> care if it takes days, as long as the process is essentially
>>>> automatic.
>>>
>>> IIRC the reason Pat dropped Gnome was the hassle of configuring and
>>> building all the /separate/ software packages Gnome is made up of.
>>> Unless something has _drastically_ changed there is no automatic way
>>> of doing this. And that's the reason why all the third party Gnome
>>> distributions are major multi-person projects (I think).
>>
>> Indeed. It's also the reason why *ALL* of them are *ALWAYS* at least
>> one Gnome version behind, and often there is a new Slackware release
>> more often than a 3rd-party Gnome release. I'm a former Gnome
>> user/fan, but have given up on it because it's so far behind. Try Xfce
>> instead.
>
> Ah, you are right. gsb has actually 2.26.

Yup, and by the time they get around to making 2.28 available, Slack 13.1
will be out, and their shiny new "release" won't work on it. Been that
way for about 3-4 years now. The others (Gware and Dropline) aren't any
better.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Thus Dan C spoke:

> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:05:53 +0000, emmel wrote:
>
>> Thus Dan C spoke:
>>
>>> Indeed. It's also the reason why *ALL* of them are *ALWAYS* at least
>>> one Gnome version behind, and often there is a new Slackware release
>>> more often than a 3rd-party Gnome release. I'm a former Gnome
>>> user/fan, but have given up on it because it's so far behind. Try Xfce
>>> instead.
>>
>> Ah, you are right. gsb has actually 2.26.
>
> Yup, and by the time they get around to making 2.28 available, Slack 13.1
> will be out, and their shiny new "release" won't work on it. Been that
> way for about 3-4 years now. The others (Gware and Dropline) aren't any
> better.

::shrugs::
I only use a hand full of packages, and that seems to work out OK. Never
really cared for the Gnome desktop.