[bt-devel] Missing bt-printing

[Brook Humphrey]

Tim Brodie wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brook Humphrey" <bah@webmedic.net>
> To: <bt-devel@crosswire.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [bt-devel] Missing bt-printing
> 
> 
> 
>>Sorry it took so long to reply I'm working on a static version of
>>
> bibletime
> 
>>that is not working out so well. and While the static builds it pretty
>>
> much
> 
>>makes xfree kind of unusable.
>>
>>I havn't tried with redhat 7.1 yet so I can't say yet. I do have it and it
>>
> is
> 
>>planned for a build but I do all my work on my mandrake box so everything
>>gets tested there and when it is complete then I try on the other systems.
>>
>>But even if you install all the redhat updates for 7.0 it still won't
>>
> compile
> 
>>redhat 7.0 was done very badly. You may get it to compile if you download
>>
> all
> 
>>the source code for your system and compile from scratch but there are far
>>
> to
> 
>>many problems with 7.0.
>>
>>I did install 7.1 and it went smooth. Seems to run faster and maybe there
>>
> are
> 
>>a few other nice things about it. I may try to compile it today on redhat
>>
> 7.1
> 
>>but no promises.
>>
> 
> Thanks for saving me much grief!  :-)
> 
> Without trying to start a flame war, is there any consensus which
> distribution is favoured for development and why?  [I'll download and
> burn the rh7.1 and mandrake 7.1 iso images tomorrow and burn a copy
> to install and build with.]


Get mandrake 8.0 instead of mandrake 7.1

I've probably used every version of red hat since 5.0, mandrake since 
5.3, slackware since 4.0, turbolinux a few times, cadera since 2.1, suse 
since 6.1, corel, peanutlinux, and a few other firewall, floppy and 
secure linux distros, after messing with all these some distros seem to 
just work better. They support the developers better and things just 
work without me having to mess with it. Don;t get me wrong I've had to 
compile my kernel a few times and other things like setting up my modems 
before the distro's started setting them up automatically then it was 
manually setting up samba and firewalls. And after all this it is nice 
to have a distro that does most of this tedious work for me.

as far as that goes mandrake offers everthing freely. and thier stuff 
just works. They even include the static libs if I want to try and 
compile them in. It takes allot of the mundane work off my hands.

Now that said redhat is ok. Just seems to be missing things after using 
mandrake. But on a side note 7.1 seems to be a vast improvement. Still 
doesn't do as much as mandrake 8.0 but its getting better.

Suse comes with so much stuff it's unreal. but the gpl versions once 
again don't include as much as mandrake.I do however like suse. It's 
very good.

Caldera always seems to have problems compileing source for me. Some 
tings work others don't.

corel is almost the same as windows.

slackware is stable but i'm less familiar with it

I tried debian And have never been able to get it to install thats 
including storm's version. I may try progeny soon and see wats its like.




> 
> I know there is a considerable install base in north america in rh6.2.
> Is your intent to eliminate environmental problems with building static
> linked binaries?


yes that was my thought.


> 
> I am able to run KDE2.1.1 on my rh6.2 box very well... it works a treat.
> Is it a desired objective of the development team to address this
> market?  Or in other words, is there specific distribution(s) that
> BibleTime is primarily directed to?


No but I'm not a programmer, I'm a scripter(websites, php, shell 
scripts), so if it doesn't compile all I can do is report it. if the 
errors are to wierd like with redhat 7.0 and caldera I not sure that any 
of us know what to do to fix it.

  The main programmer Joachim uses suse and mandrake.


> 
> Regards... Tim
> 
> 
> 
>