mikshaw
Group: Members
Posts: 4856
Joined: July 2004 |
 |
Posted: July 09 2007,14:38 |
 |
One thing I'd forgotten to mention is a real-life example of what results from assuming that files extracted from Debian packages are good enough to pass as compatible with DSL.
The ImageMagick myDSL extension has a consistent minor flaw in the gui that will present the user with a warning message if the file selector is cancelled. This happens every time i do this in a vanilla DSL. However, the bug does not show when the application is first compiled, while gcc1-with-libs is still installed. In other words, gcc1-with-libs creates applications that are not entirely compatible with vanilla DSL.
| Quote | | I used a binary closest in version number to the woody application/library in order to have something from the same era and thus likely to work with DSL/compile applications that will work with DSL |
You're probably right in assuming that it will be likely to work. Most of my comments were related to using binaries from Debian as requirements for building a DSL application from source. Unless the library is the *exact* version found in vanilla DSL, I'd say it's not entirely suitable for this task. Maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about (but that's the topic).
Unfortunately, as time passes the older debian binaries become outdated and are left behind. The only way to continue experiencing new features and fixes in these apps is either to keep DSL current (or nearly current) with Debian package management or to compile the newer versions of applications from source, specifically targeted to DSL. I'd opt for the latter, since it would be much easier on DSL development and provide more fexibility to application builders.
--------------
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
