[PD] GEM dev distribution

[B. Bogart]

Hi Brad,

I've had very few problems compiling Gem on both my suse9 machines and
my debian machines. Actually I would not suggest suse9 as I'm switching
that machine to ubuntu anyhow.

The gem maintainer does use debian so that certainly makes things more
likely to work, and we both also use the nvidia binary drivers.

I had almost nothing but problems compiling frm 0.87 on redhat 6.2 back
in the day, and never bothered trying to get it to work.

I did manage to compile Gem on a fedora core2 machine at work, and that
did seem to work.

I would certainly suggest debian as a distro, though it may take some
getting used to...

.b.

Brad Kligerman wrote:
> Hi all/
>
> I'm frustrated by not being able to completely and correctly compile the
> latest and the greatest GEM and certain other extensions I use everyday
> to build GEM patches. My efforts have been sadly chronicled on this list
> for the past several months.
>
> So I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier if I used the same
> distribution as GEM's devel people??
> 1/ Is it correct to assume GEM etc... will compile correctly if I'm
> using the same distribution as the people developing it; and
> 2/ which distribution do most or all of GEM's developers use (though I
> think Debian is the correct answer to this one)?
>
> I'm currently using Fedora FC4 for both desktop and server apps, and I'm
> otherwise happy with it.
>
> Thanks /Brad.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20051219/bd989bd5/attachment.pgp>