[NTLUG:Discuss] has anyone used Alexandria?

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 21:05, Kevin Brannen wrote:
> I've found a program called Alexandria (for book cataloging) that seems 
> like it could be good.  See http://alexandria.rubyforge.org/.  Has 
> anyone used it and can comment on what it's like?
> Better still, has anyone ever installed it? (preferrably on an Suse 
> distro but I'd take stories about it anywhere :-)  It's done in Ruby 
> with GTK,

Actually, it doesn't look like GTK+, but GNOME specifically.  Not trying
to be anal, but there is a difference because GTK+ does not require
GNOME, but GNOME does use GTK+.

> so I'm going thru Gnome hell again, trillions of libs with 
> interdependencies and no end in sight...sigh.  If so, can you remember 
> and comment on what it takes to get it installed and working?

For what distro?

They state that Debian Sid (unstable) has packages:  

"Official Debian packages are available in the unstable (Sid)
distribution. Installing should be as simple as apt-get install
alexandria."

Otherwise the README lists:  

Requirements
------------
    Ruby >= 1.8.0:              http://www.ruby-lang.org
    GNOME >= 2.6:               http://www.gnome.org
    Ruby/Amazon >= 0.8.3:       http://www.caliban.org/ruby/ruby-amazon.shtml
    Ruby-GetText >= 0.6.1:      http://ponx.s5.xrea.com/hiki/ruby-gettext.html
    Ruby-GNOME2 >= 0.10.1 [*]:  http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp

    [*]: Required libraries are: Ruby/Libglade2, Ruby/Gnome2, Ruby/GdkPixbuf2
                                 and Ruby/GConf2.

Seems like gdkpixbuf2 (GTK+ developer kit), libglade2 (GTK+ GUI resource
tool) and gnome2 (which would include gconf2) would be the dependencies,
as well as the Ruby support dependencies.



-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith at ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.