[scribus] 1.3.3.12 no odt support???

[Craig Bradney]

> ----- Original Message -----
> Subject: Re: [scribus] 1.3.3.12 no odt support???
> From: John Culleton <john at wexfordpress.com>
> To: "Craig Bradney" <cbradney at scribus.info>,"Scribus User Mailing List"
<scribus at lists.scribus.net>
> Date: 26-06-2008 14:34
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 25 June 2008 03:25:35 am Craig Bradney wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Subject: Re: [scribus] 1.3.3.12 no odt support???
> > > From: Rolf-Werner Eilert <eilert-sprachen at t-online.de>
> > > To: cbradney at zipworld.com.au,"Scribus User Mailing List"
> >
> > <scribus at lists.scribus.net>
> >
> > > Date: 25-06-2008 8:40
> > >
> > > Craig Bradney schrieb:
> > > > Theres nothing wrong with the source that I can see...
> > > >
> > > > before you run configure, please run
> > > > make -f Makefile.svn
> > > >
> > > > as per:
> > > > http://docs.scribus.net/index.php?lang=en&page=install3
> > > >
> > > > I have just gone through and tested many scenarious of code,
> > > > missing
> >
> > includes,
> >
> > > > incorrect autohell versions etc, with the tarball and had all
> > > > of the mentioned issues. Running the make -f line fixed it in
> > > > one go with no workarounds.
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > >
> > > Even if it's not the svn version, Craig? I got the ordinary
> > > source of the stable 1.3.3.12 to compile.
> >
> > Having not used autohell for awhile it took me awhile to go through
> > the elimination process last night. I finally remembered we had
> > issues like this in the past and it was because the person had not
> > run make -f Makefile.svn. It will depend on your system as to
> > whether you need this or not, I found I always had to run it in the
> > past.
> >
> > Use cmake.. you hair wont go grey, and you wont be pulling it out
> > at every call to configure. No nasty spells required either.
> >
> > Craig
> 
> 
> The instructions for cmake describe a more complex and for me at least 
> confusing process than the traditional process. I recognize that the 
> developers see virtues in cmake. But perhaps after development is 
> completed the install process could be boiled down to the usual  
> method for us busy folks that keep many Open Source products on our 
> systems.  If every product develops its own unique installation 
> software then life becomes unnecessarily complex.  I have seen other 
> products (Inkscape as I recall) follow other paths looking for the 
> ideal installation system. But for the end user the ideal method is 
> something that works and is reasonably simple and universal. 
> 
> Other Open Source products (e.g Gimp) compile and install nicely with 
> ./configure
> make
> make install
> and have for many years.  And Scribus used to.

I'm sorry??????????? Since when did:

cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/path/to/install/to (plus other options if
you like, as per configure)
make
make install

become harder? 3 steps vs steps.

You are forgetting one step, the make -f Makefile.svn line, which on some
distros, and with differing versions of automake/autoconf , is required. so
thats 4 steps for autohell.

Craig