14 Mar
2011
14 Mar
'11
7:43 p.m.
My 2 cents:
I appreciate --- and have accepted --- the need to move to cmake. Even the KDE4 developers
moved to cmake.
The conversion to cmake is going to take time. A long time.
Something broke after 3.5.12. On Slackware 12.2 I can build Trinity 3.5.12 but not SVN.
The twist is I am trying to build SVN on the same system with the same tools that
successfully builds 3.5.12. Therefore I am inclined to think the problem is with the SVN
automake configuration files.
I understand why the packages that have been ported to cmake require a newer version of
cmake, but not those packages that should still build with automake.
Past conversations indicate something needs to be patched in some header files to build
with newer versions of automake. Is that a technical challenge that is difficult to
overcome? Or is the reason everybody is waiting for the cmake port to complete and prefer
not to expend anymore energy with automake?
In the mean time some people cannot build Trinity at all.
I have not yet tried to build Trinity or KDE on a newer Slackware system. I intend to try
soon.
I lack the skills to patch bugs or convert to cmake, or patch automake. I can build
packages and test bugs, but I can't now do that.
I won't wait forever for Trinity to be buildable. The same is true for end-users who
quietly have been waiting for Trinity. They can't even download packages because none
are being built.
Because I can't build Trinity, I have been exploring KDE4 in a virtual machine. I am
not warm and fuzzy with KDE4, but as I test that desktop I am acclimating to the new way
of doing things. I am learning to strip cruft and reduce the noise KDE4 makes. Slowly I am
massaging KDE4 into something I could use --- despite my preference for KDE3/Trinity.
I am not yet throwing in the towel. Yet if within the next several weeks I cannot build
Trinity or KDE 3.5.10 on any Slackware system then I will face the decision of moving on.
Trinity has much potential. I do not look forward to that day.
Darrell