Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
Constantine 'Gus' Fantanas wrote:
I was wondering, has anybody been able to install gEDA on 64-bit SuSE 10?
I rebuilt the fedora rpms that were linked from their download page on my SuSE 9.3 x86_64. They should be available at http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/suser-jmorris/suse93/ when it syncs. I haven't really used them yet, but it looks interesting. HTH.
Thank you for your time and effort. I was not expecting anybody to create rpms for gEDA! I visited the URL you mentioned (which I had visited a lot in the past, too!). When I started installing the rpms, I discovered a potential issue: The rpms expected a user "joe", which did not exist on my system. By default, the source gEDA files want to install in the same directory they have been unzipped in unless special arguments are passed to the makefile prompts. The rpms allow no choice of the installation directory; since no user joe is found, the rpms try to install at /root. The preferred location would be somewhere like '/opt/geda/share' or something like that, so they can be used by different users or the same system (like the openoffice workstation install instead of the single-user install). Your effort to package rpms for gEDA is certainly laudable because SuSE is a major distribution (the premiere 64-bit distribution in my humble opinion) and gEDA is a suite which gives the $50k+ commercial packages a run for their money, but this does not answer the question why the gEDA installer complains about the /lib/cpp (C preprocessor) failing the sanity check. Do I have to export any environment variables to satisfy the installer? One package that is missing from the rpms is the gschem2pcb package, which is a layout package. (The schematic capture is the means to enter the schematic to the computer; the schematic capture eventually generates what is called "netlist," i.e. a representation of the connections between components; after that, the layout package takes the netlist and the "footprints" of the components exported to it from the schematic capture, and provides the tools to place the components --as footprints-- and connect them. This is part of the typical flow regardless of which CAD package is used.) From this it should be apparent that an rpm-less install may afford the user a greater flexibility. Just out of curiosity, how did they overcome on Fedora the issue of C preprocessor sanity that is plaguing me? Again, thank you for your time and effort. Regards, Gus Fantanas -- Running 64-bit Linux on AMD64