"arnuld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:42:23 +0530:
> Eh.. I thought unstable means... unstable of course. Yeah, well... there are degrees. There's a couple unfixed bugs in the newer version, perhaps why it hasn't gone stable, but there were some bugs in the older version as well, that were just more or less lived with. And since 0.14.2 is something like five years old, now, what might have been stable then is now (as you found out) crufty old code that on a modern distro won't even compile without patching, any more. > And I tried both > versions on my friend's Intel Core 2 Quad processor running WindowsXP > and none of them ran, complaining of some missing DLL file. Hence I did > not compile the unstable version thinking that I will get make problems > on Linux which I did get with stable version. The MS Windows versions... are a different ballgame. Basically, a lot of the native *ix libraries (GTK+ and what not) that pan is built upon are ported to MS Windows too, and so pan could build upon them and be ported as well, but it's rather more complicated there as one has to make sure they have a working set of GTK+ ports as well as a working pan executable, and that can be tough to get and keep straight. That said, I understand there's a couple people that build "automagic" installer packages that handle it all for you. (I wouldn't know, I don't do slaveryware, see my sig.) > I tried the unstable version. It compiles and installs successfully > without any problem. I will report if I get any run-time errors. Cool! =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
