| 1 |
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 09:08 am, Marko Mikulicic wrote: |
| 2 |
> Riyad Kalla wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Good point... doesn't this require the creation/maintenance of |
| 4 |
> > hundreds of new ebuilds? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> perhaps using eclass could reduce the body of the ebuild to a standard |
| 7 |
> template |
| 8 |
> which can be easly maintained ? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
KDE currently has it's own set of eclasses. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
laredo # ls -1 /usr/portage/eclass/kde* |
| 13 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde-base.eclass |
| 14 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde-pre.eclass |
| 15 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde-dist.eclass |
| 16 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde-source.eclass |
| 17 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde-functions.eclass |
| 18 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde.eclass |
| 19 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde-i18n.eclass |
| 20 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde.org.eclass |
| 21 |
/usr/portage/eclass/kde-patch.eclass |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The trick (as the Gentoo devs already know) is getting around the |
| 24 |
'configure' time. Take a look at Dan Armak's explanation of the problem |
| 25 |
in bug # 11123. If you have some specific ideas how those eclasses could |
| 26 |
be improved to support a granular KDE install, that would be very welcome. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
My $.02 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Caching the workdir will be necessary (via some USE flag like 'kde-cache') |
| 31 |
unless we pursue something different as proposed in comments #2, #3 of |
| 32 |
that bug. Dan's correct in saying that caching the configuration stuff is |
| 33 |
not very elegant. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I think the best solution is to hack the eclass to read a variable, which |
| 36 |
could be set in MAKE.CONF. Something like |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
KDE_PACKAGES="all" |
| 39 |
or |
| 40 |
KDE_PACKAGES="kword kspread kmail kwrite" [...etc...] |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Cheers, |
| 43 |
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@×××××.com] |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives