<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I think you misread me. I said "like Slackware or Debian" meaning any
distribution that is active. I've been reading the thread on this and
the messages from Ivan and I think his approach is probably best. I
just don't have the time to sit through the process of compiling it. I
do appreciate any work people do to get it working on various
distributions.<br>
<br>
What I was referring to really was the question of what will be the
"Official" distribution (if any...or none at all) that is going to
replace RH 7.3? <br>
<br>
I have not looked at the process for pulling down the sources from cvs
and then compiling it. Is the make process simple like<br>
<br>
./configure <br>
make <br>
make install<br>
<br>
or is it really hard....like having to edit your own makefile in the
old days...or is it somewhere in between? Not that I am criticizing
it...cause I'm not..really. Just wondering if it's worth my time to
pull down the sources. If it's overly complex I might have to put it on
hold till I have more time on my hands. I'll definitely look at the
slackware scripts to see if it's going to work under 9.1<br>
<br>
thanks!<br>
<br>
-Doug <br>
CISE/NSF<br>
<br>
<br>
Charles R. Anderson wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20031201211004.A12246@angus.ind.WPI.EDU"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:17:19AM -0500, Douglas Baggett wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Maybe the AG project should switch to some other distro like Slackware
or Debian?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
That seems pretty short sighted to me. Imagine if the GNOME or KDE
developers limited themselves to supporting one distro.
There is no reason both/all cannot be supported. People are using
various distros already for the AG.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>