Please help with these compilation errors

[eschwartz]

PPAs can be added by anyone. Perhaps you could publish one.

** finds debian packaging methods entirely too confusing **

[darkbreath]

Which distro are you using? I'm open to trying new distros. Debian-based distros were just a (relatively) gentle way to learn Linux since I could lean on the GUI somewhat while learning the terminal.

[eschwartz]

Arch Linux.

Which places an emphasis on only installing what you explicitly ask for, makes it easy to roll your own packages via the simple PKGBUILD, and isn't quite as hardcore as Gentoo "Compile everything from scratch" Linux, but isn't far behind.

"Arch Linux defines simplicity as without unnecessary additions or modifications."

[DiapDealer]

For the record: a Sigil ppa would have been a possibility quite a while ago. And it's a definite possibility now. But there for a while, the dependencies of Sigil simply couldn't be met by LTS systems.

So while a Sigil ppa could be (and often was) attempted by interested third-parties, one was in no better shape when you STILL had to go way outside the LTS (and even newer non-LTS) box for sufficient versions of Qt5 and Python3 for Sigil to work. You'd have needed three ppas: one providing bleeding edge Qt5; one providing a bleeding edge Python3 and one providing Sigil (and a prayer that binaries could be provided that didn't exceed the LTS's glibc limitations due to Sigil's C++11 compiler requirements). I think 14.04 finally got to Python 3.4 just relatively recently, but I think it was still way shy of Sigil's Qt5.4.0 minimum when 16.04 came out.

Now that LTS has caught up to Sigil's dependencies, there's really no need for a ppa anymore--though there's definitely one out there. It's maintainer has been patiently keeping it up to date and ready for whenever kicking it up to Ubuntu's repos finally made sense. It just wouldn't have really helped you before 16.04.

And I'm a fairly recent convert to Arch Linux, as well. The previous "upgrade" from an earlier LTS cured me from ever wanting to go down that road again. My 14.04-based Linux Mint 17 machine will likely rot.

[signum]

If it's bleeding edge you want, go to

Olivier Banus' PPA page on Launchpad

and download/install the xenial version of his PPA. There is also a wily version and a couple of historical versions.

Launchpad is where the Ubuntu developers have their build farms and testing facilities. Olivier, posting as "sunab", has posted to this forum three times.

I am using his xenial version and can verify that it runs. As of this writing, it was compiled on July 1 from the sigil git master as it stood on June 28. It is identified in the git change log as preSigil-0.9.7

Also on launchpad in a different account, Mattias Rizzolo is working on preSigil-0.9.7 for yakkity alpha1. While he has a PPA listed, there are no other versions available.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by signum

Also on launchpad in a different account, Mattias Rizzolo is working on preSigil-0.9.7 for yakkity alpha1. While he has a PPA listed, there are no other versions available.

I believe Mattias is the maintainer of the Sigil 0.9.5 package for Ubuntu and Debian.

[darkbreath]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

For the record: a Sigil ppa would have been a possibility quite a while ago. And it's a definite possibility now. But there for a while, the dependencies of Sigil simply couldn't be met by LTS systems.

So while a Sigil ppa could be (and often was) attempted by interested third-parties, one was in no better shape when you STILL had to go way outside the LTS (and even newer non-LTS) box for sufficient versions of Qt5 and Python3 for Sigil to work. You'd have needed three ppas: one providing bleeding edge Qt5; one providing a bleeding edge Python3 and one providing Sigil (and a prayer that binaries could be provided that didn't exceed the LTS's glibc limitations due to Sigil's C++11 compiler requirements). I think 14.04 finally got to Python 3.4 just relatively recently, but I think it was still way shy of Sigil's Qt5.4.0 minimum when 16.04 came out.

Now that LTS has caught up to Sigil's dependencies, there's really no need for a ppa anymore--though there's definitely one out there. It's maintainer has been patiently keeping it up to date and ready for whenever kicking it up to Ubuntu's repos finally made sense. It just wouldn't have really helped you before 16.04.

And I'm a fairly recent convert to Arch Linux, as well. The previous "upgrade" from an earlier LTS cured me from ever wanting to go down that road again. My 14.04-based Linux Mint 17 machine will likely rot.

I would gladly install 5 PPAs if it meant I didn't have to compile from source. With PPAs, you just install once and then let the system's automatic update do all the work. And PPAs offer the latest version too. If I compile from source and need a feature from the latest version, I have to compile again. The barriers, both psychological and actual, are high when compiling from source.

I tend to use LTS versions for reasons of stability. Linux has so many small problems that drive me mad, so when I finally manage to fix enough of them to restore some measure of sanity to my computing experience, I want it to last as long as possible; generally not just until the next LTS comes out, but until the support period for the current LTS version expires completely.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Arch Linux.

Which places an emphasis on only installing what you explicitly ask for, makes it easy to roll your own packages via the simple PKGBUILD, and isn't quite as hardcore as Gentoo "Compile everything from scratch" Linux, but isn't far behind.

"Arch Linux defines simplicity as without unnecessary additions or modifications."

I was actually thinking of trying Arch until I saw this. I've looked at it briefly and realized I needed to read a huge article just to get Arch installed! I might try it in the future, but I just don't have the time for it right now.

You guys are so ambitious. I only barely got comfortable with Debian derivatives with so much work, and switching to Arch may be as difficult as moving from Windows to Linux was. The learning curve is so steep and shows no signs of getting better as I move up operating systems in difficulty.

[roger64]

Originally Posted by darkbreath

.../...I was actually thinking of trying Arch until I saw this. I've looked at it briefly and realized I needed to read a huge article just to get Arch installed! I might try it in the future, but I just don't have the time for it right now.

You guys are so ambitious. I only barely got comfortable with Debian derivatives with so much work, and switching to Arch may be as difficult as moving from Windows to Linux was. The learning curve is so steep and shows no signs of getting better as I move up operating systems in difficulty.

You can take a shortcut to Arch installing for example Antergos. So easy. I know it: I did it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by darkbreath

I was actually thinking of trying Arch until I saw this. I've looked at it briefly and realized I needed to read a huge article just to get Arch installed! I might try it in the future, but I just don't have the time for it right now.

You guys are so ambitious. I only barely got comfortable with Debian derivatives with so much work, and switching to Arch may be as difficult as moving from Windows to Linux was. The learning curve is so steep and shows no signs of getting better as I move up operating systems in difficulty.

There are pluses and minuses. I actually understand how Arch works, which makes it simple to change things. Whereas Debian I don't really understand, despite having used it in the past (via Ubuntu).

One example of this is that I found it easy to maintain a sigil-git package for the Arch User Repository, but Debian packaging is a confusing maze to me (and seems to require modifying the source code by adding the horribly complex "debian" folder).


I actually found Arch to be pretty simple and easy to manage, with a little investment of time and effort -- but it is worth noting that it does require that investment.
As roger64 said, there are a couple Arch derivatives, like Antergos, which try to be a little more user-friendly especially with regards to the installation process. I still value the vanilla experience, but you might decide Antergos is for you.

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I actually found Arch to be pretty simple and easy to manage, with a little investment of time and effort -- but it is worth noting that it does require that investment.

I'm also using an Antergos distro. IMHO, the learning curve is pretty shallow; pretty much the only thing that new user will have to familiarize themselves with is how to use pacman and/or yaourt.

Only once I had to manually build and install the latest tint2 version, because the one in the repos was buggy and even that was a walk in the park.