[ale] Enlightenment not there?

[esoteric at denali.atlnet.com (Wandered Inn)]

michael mcdermott wrote:
> 
> I know, but I am pretty sure that the RPMS are wildly out of date.

I disagree.  Generally, you will find rpms that are a couple of point
releases back.

> It is definately not the recommended way to install enlightenment.
> I tried doing it like that the first time and it never worked.

Who recommends so, certainly not Raster?  I'm currently running an rpm
version of enlightenment (enlightenment-0.15.0-SNAP-19990120), along
with an rpm version of gimp.  They work fine.  I've been trying to keep
this particular machine a completely rpm based install, so as to 'prove'
that it is possible to create a novice installable/usable solution of
Linux.  There are a few bleeding edge things that I did download source
for, but for the most part, I've come pretty close to my rpm 'case
study.'

When it comes to E, inparticular, the daily tarballs are bleeding edge
stuff, that may not compile, for various reasons.

> It takes a while to compile some of the libraries though.

True, and for a novice, trying to figure out why a compile fails is
difficult.  With an rpm solution, it will tell you what you're missing.


Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at denali.atlnet.com

You mean you paid MONEY for Service Pack '98????