Re: Building Sawfish (was: Re: [Sawfish] lack of contributors)

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Teika Kazura <teika@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Campbell, *please* don't reply to a wrong thread. If you do choose
> to reply, you've got to change the title, and delete some headers,
> reply-to:, references: etc. I think it's easier to send a new one,
> rather than replying.

You reply hints at not needing to build (using packages or only
building in some cases),
yet the point of the original discussion is about getting new
developers who by definition need to build.

So this shouldnt be just about building, rather documenting a setup
for developers - which dev libs, which stable libs, what tools work
well, editor settings, code style guide etc.

> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 10:32:08 +1000, Campbell Barton wrote:
> I don't think there's reason to build the latest git Sawfish for
> most. Neither for librep and rep-gtk; they don't get so many updates.
> Stable releases suffice.

The thread was on how to get new developers so - not "for most".

It isn't clear to me if you can use the lastest sawfish-git with
stable libreb and rep-gtk, such matters should be covered in docs for
new developers.
for all I know changes are put into rep-get that sawfish depends on
(once in a while at least).

> One reason to try the latest is to join the development. In that case,
> I don't recommend git clone, but pull.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that.

> I also recommend to read
> the logs or new ML posts to see what's happening before
> installation. So "building all three automatically by a single script"
> idea doesn't intrigue me. (Neither for other packages which you're not
> especially interested in. It's a waste of time. Stay stable.)

Agree in respect to only building packages if you are prepared to be
involved somewhat - reading commit logs, reporting, helping fix
problems, etc.

However there IS value in using the latests state of an application,
you find when things break and are able to test new features, For
users who are prepared to test the bleeding edge builds and report
bugs - I dont see why this would be discouraged.

> And, there's no reason, _at all_, to avoid the use of the package
> manager of your distro. (Do you install Sawfish to an embedded
> system?)  Those who build from the latest git especially should use
> the package manager.

IMHO this is beside the point, if someone wants to build from source
to become involved with development, this should be made as
straightforward as possible (via docs and automation where useful), of
course if they only want to use, package managers are fine.

On a different tact, you could document how YOU develop sawfish so
others can use it as a basis.

I did this for my IDE setup and also made a video

.... So even if new devs like their own editors or so, they can see how
others manage it.

- Campbell

> Teika (Teika kazura)
> --
> Sawfish ML

- Campbell

Sawfish ML

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+