> On Saturday 24 December 2005 17:18, you wrote:
>> On SuSE 9.1 -- just install the RPM. SuSE ships with gnucash. Use it.
> That's the first place I checked; SuSE does _not_ ship with GNUCash,
> at least
> not with the SuSE 9.1 CDs I purchased. in fact it doesn't even ship with a c
> compiler - only the c pre-processor. I tried the only RPM versions available
> on the GNUCash site and its mirror sites, but the latest version for either
> SuSE or Solaris is 1.1.10, which would not install properly.
Suse most certainly ships with gnucash. It also most certainly ships
with a compiler.
>> So, I'm sorry you're having such a hard time. But if you can't even get
>> a compiler working, well, there's very little anyone on this list can
>> do to help you.
> So GNUCash is not for mere mortals like me who lack a sufficiently pointy hat
> to even compile a c compiler? I think I'll have better results, and avoid
> these kinds of egotistical comments I find on the lists by working out the
> problem myself.
The gnucash-devel list is not for "mere mortals like [you] who lack a
sufficiently pointy hat". That's what the gnucash-user list is for.
gnucash-devel is for DEVELOPERS. So, yes, on this list you are most
certainly expected to be able to install a compiler yourself...
ESPECIALLY when your distribution ships with one! As for solaris,
have you ever tried www.sunfreeware.com? You can get pre-built binaries
of gcc there....
On Monday 26 December 2005 6:13 pm, someone claiming to be Derek Atkins wrote:
> PLEASE CC GNUCASH-DEVEL ON ALL REPLIES...
> PS: in the future, PLEASE REPLY TO THE LIST!
Which begs the question... why not set the reply-to header to be the list?
Not that I care, much. KMail is smart enough to know that this is a mailing
list (there is a List-Id: and List-Post: in the header, I guess kmail uses
that info), so replies autimatically go to the list. But not everybody uses a
MUA that does that...
Am Dienstag, 27. Dezember 2005 01:42 schrieb Tim Wunder:
> > PS: in the future, PLEASE REPLY TO THE LIST!
> Which begs the question... why not set the reply-to header to be the list?
No no no no no. Please don't let this header munging extend to any mailing
list around here. There are good reasons why header munging (i.e. the
changing of the Reply-To) field is discouraged everywhere around. For
1. there are instances when I really want to answer only the sender, not to
2. in all other cases I may want to write to both the sender and the list
(because the list server might be down or might delay my response);
3. Some senders may want to use the Reply-To field to set an actually
different email address to send a response to; that information is
All three are almost impossible once the Reply-To field has been changed. (Try
it on the -patches list!)
No no no no. Please don't mess with the Reply-To field. I already hate it from
the two times when I replied to the -patches list recently, where I really
only wanted to write to the sender (#1 above). Really don't do this.
This is a problem of social convention, and if the convention is not (yet)
known then there simply isn't a technical solution to the social question.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:13:50PM +0100, Christian Stimming wrote:
> No no no no. Please don't mess with the Reply-To field. I already hate it from
> the two times when I replied to the -patches list recently, where I really
> only wanted to write to the sender (#1 above). Really don't do this.
Agreed. This has annoyed me at least once, too.
Did you notice that my 23 Dec email proposed the removal of this hack
even for -patches? I think our plethora of mailing lists can be
simplified and improved, and I'm looking forward to some motion on
this front. Did you have any suggestion for how to implement the
change from -patches to -commits?