[scribus] 1.3.3.12 no odt support???

[Plinnell]

On Thursday 26 June 2008 14:34:05 John Culleton wrote:
> 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.

Yes, and that is why Inkscape has started to migrate to Cmake as well. :)

> 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.

Hmm..

cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/path/whereyouwant/scribus
make
make install

Not so complicated to me and the error messages are readable by mere humans.
>
> I keep multiple versions of Scribus installed by the simple expedient
> of putting the source of each version in a separate directory and
> renaming the executable of the older versions with e.g. scribus11.
> So I don't see any virtue in cmake to the end user.
>
For starters:
Faster
Better clearer error messages
Cross platform It works on Windows/OSX/Linux
Easier to maintain for developers, so we can spend more time coding :)
Prevents developers hair loss and temporary bouts of insanity. :)

> After running
> make -f Makefile.svn
> Scribus 1.3.3.12 compiles but can't find its plugins on execution.
> Given this degree of uncertainty I will stick with 1.3.3.11 as the
> stable version and wait for the next major version. I have wasted too
> much time on 1.3.3.12 already.  It is only a minor release.

<snipped>

Excepting this issue, there are important fixes in 1.3.3.12.

Peter