That's exactly what I'm doing now: that will be tedious enough as I 
re-run configure 10 times and spell out exactly where qt and friends are 
. . . .

Richard Rauch wrote:

>FWIW, Linda:
>
>You implied that you were using prebuilt packages, and only as a last
>resort installed from pkgsrc.
>
>I long ago gave up on binary packages.  I've found that they have defaults
>compiled in (defaults that I don't care for), or even sometimes have weird
>dependancy mis-matches.  Building from source solved those problems.  I've
>never looked back.
>
>I do have KDE installed on a system, with pkgsrc SUP'ed around the first
>week of December.  You might try using CVS to synch your pkgsrc to that
>date, and then *build* all of your packages from scratch.  (Yes, that can
>take a while.  But I have KDE installed and running from that.)  You can
>probably pick most other pkgsrc dates as well, though I have hit periods
>of ``outtages'' for complex packages like KDE.
>
>I used to SUP pkgsrc on a regular basis, but after rebuilding all and
>sundry for the Nth time because some program clammored for a 3rd-tier
>version update to libpng, I largely stopped tracking pkgsrc.  Now I only
>update pkgsrc if I'm updating everything anyway, or if I really need
>something from a fresher version of pkgsrc.
>
>
>However, having kept KDE and GNOME installed on my machine for some little
>time, my opinion is: They are monsters.  (^&
>
>I only casually/experimentally use them for myself.  Although I've never
>professionally administered systems, I'd be leary of putting either KDE or
>GNOME up on a system that I was paid to administer.  I think that the rest
>of the system would be okay, but I'd probably never hear the end of
>complaints about this-or-that not working in KDE or GNOME.
>
>(If I had to put one or the other up, I'd go with KDE, though.  It's
>proven more stable.  Also, the main value that these things seem to have
>is that they more or less emulate MS-WINDOWS.  KDE does a better job of
>that; GNOME's had a strong visual appeal early on, but has lost much of
>that without gaining much anywhere else.)
>
>
>  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu
>