3.0pre2 will build from source on SuSE 6.4

rkiesling at mainmatter.com rkiesling at mainmatter.com
Fri May 11 17:35:44 UTC 2001


John Hinsley  <jhinsley at telinco.co.uk> writes:
> 
> rkiesling at mainmatter.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > This seemed as good an opportunity to de-lurk as any.
> > 
> > Squeak 3.0 built without a hitch on Debian/GNU 2.2, kernel version
> > 2.0.38, glibc 2.1.3, and GCC 2.95.2. 
> 
> It _will_ build on SuSE (see, I subtly changed the header!) But you do
> need to know which kernel sources to have (and, I guess that you need to
> know that you do need the kernel sources). This wasn't obvious to me,
> and I guess it'd be even less obvious to someone who'd not spent the
> last 4 years playing about with Linux.

The same version as the kernel that's running, ideally (type "uname -a"), 
unless of course, it's an upgrade.

> 
> The point I'd make is that anyone who had downloaded the binary version
> and got it running and then discovered that they needed a plug in would
> find themselves in the same position. Plugins are probably necessary as
> seperate .so files at an ad hoc development level, but I'd argue that
> there ought to be a way to make the building of them easier (perhaps a
> Squeak equivalent of gimptool?) and to make them loadable from within
> Squeak (which, I think, is what the VMMaker folk are talking about in
> the plugin suffixes thread). I think the need for this will become more
> obvious as Linux (I think inevitably -- look at Mac and Linux use
> figures for -- say -- Germany or China) eventually replaces Mac as the
> de-facto development platform for Squeak. This isn't a dig against Mac
> folk who have taught us so much and have quite enough to contend with.
> ;-)
> 
> I'd welcome a day when all a Linux/Squeak newbie has to know is a 10
> word vocabulary of commands to get a plug in built and running. It seems
> to me "wrong" that to use a Smalltalk one needs a fair knowledge of C
> and a good understanding of relatively arcane Unix stuff. (Of course,
> it's nice to have the openess that that introduces available, but I'd
> guess that relatively few people would use it from choice or even need
> it. I mean, how many people on the list actually write or maintain plug
> ins?

I certainly don't.  My experience, and that of most other people who 
told me, is that the expense of time is approximately equal for system
related tasks.  Squeak in particular, unlike almost every other cross
platform app I've used, is less stable on my Linux systems, even when
building from source.  (The distro version of 3.0 segfaults immediately.)

-- 
Robert Kiesling
Linux FAQ Maintainer 
rkiesling at mainmatter.com
http://www.mainmatter.com/linux-faq/toc.html  http://www.mainmatter.com/
---
Tired of spam?  Please forward messages to uce at ftc.gov.







More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list