From: Doug Sutherland (wearable_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 2001-12-27 09:14:27
> What linux version would it be, and what flavor, 2.2 , 2.4
> or forthcoming 2.5 to 2.x ...
Perhaps you are confusing binary versions with source.
We won't write to a kernel version. We won't be using
anything that is specific to differences between the
above mentioned kernels. Most of the differences are
in new driver support. At this point all we care about
is serial port drivers. The source will compile on any
of the above kernel versions.
> would it be mandrake, red hat, hard hat, soft hat,
> debian, fabian
Seems to be a bit of linux ignorance here. Linux is
the kernel. Distributions have to do with the startup,
config, install, whatever, NOT execution. It makes no
difference whatsoever which distro is used. If we use
the GNU method, you should be able to grab the tarball
and ./configure; make; make install. Dats all folks.
> would it use KDE, Gnome
Forget desktop dependencies. We aren't building office
software. I have no interest in gnome or KDE libs.
> MicroWindows, LessTiff, MoreTiff, MooTiff, or what?
Presumbly we will want to pick some graphics libs.
However, it IS possible to do X11 without the above.
If you're trying to say the situation in better on
windows you are living in a dream world.
> Compiling and hunting all of those compiler versions,
> library versions, is so much fun, isn't it.
Nope. ./configure; make; make install ...
Works on all kernels. The compliler version goes
with the kernel. It doesn't get much easier than this.
-- Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:36 BST