[OT] Which IDE / Editor do you use?

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:52:39 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 06:32:07AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:34:07 -0700
> > "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> [...]
> > > If I have to install libraries not in the apt repository (or
> > > multiple conflicting versions of the same library), I tend to put
> > > it either under an entirely different PREFIX, preferably under a
> > > dedicated subtree for the app I'm trying to build
> > 
> > I had no idea you could do that! That's fantastic: despite my
> > migration towards Linux, I had been worrying about the day I'd
> > inevitable have to deal with multiple versions of the same thing.
> 
> In spite of all my rants against autotools, it *does* let you do cool
> things like:
> 
> 	./configure --prefix=/path/to/my/dedicated/sandbox
> 
> which, if things were properly put together, will setup the Makefile
> such that make install will install to /path/to/my/dedicated/sandbox
> instead of the usual system directories.
> 
> Of course, then you need to setup $PATH and maybe a few other
> environment variables expected by the app to get things to work
> properly, but this is the way I usually like to install custom
> built-from-source apps. That way, should I want to uninstall it, I can
> just nuke the entire root directory dedicated for that app without
> damaging anything else. :)
> 
> But wait, there's more...
> 
> On Debian, a good number of library packages are actually *designed*
> to support installation of multiple versions simultaneously. Even
> fragile, sensitive giants like gcc that have an intricate web of
> library dependencies can have 4.6, 4.7, *and* 4.8 all installed
> together side-by-side (up to a certain point, of course). A good many
> libraries have been patched downstream by Debian developers to have
> proper soname correspondence with ABI changes, and the upstream
> version number is encoded into the package name (as opposed to just
> the package version number) so installing multiple versions of the
> same library is actually *officially* supported.
> 

That's pretty nice. I'm still not *quite* linux-savvy enough to know
what I'm doing with chroots (I know about them, but I've never
actually set one up, and I'd have to look up how to do it.)

Of course, it's not like the need for such things is exclusive to
Linux. Take Firefox: Even on Windows it refuses to accept the
possibility of having multiple versions installed. So some *other*
people hacked it up to make a "portable install" version (which,
strangely, *still* requires running an installer?!?), and yet even
then, it still flat out refuses to allow multiple versions to run at
the same time. Ridiculous.