| 1 |
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 10:27 am, Stephan Hermann wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> And that's the problem. |
| 4 |
> No user knows, what belongs to KDE as enviroment and what does not |
| 5 |
> belong to KDE e.g. kportage. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Not true. Anything in the base KDE distribution is in /portage/kde-base/. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> So, we're talking about developer business and not "end-customer" |
| 10 |
> business. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm a developer and (to use your word) "end-customer". I want more control |
| 14 |
over how things gets built. This speaks to the core of what Gentoo is |
| 15 |
supposed to provide. Control over what gets built and what doesn't, and |
| 16 |
how. That's one of the core goals of Gentoo. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Also, I believe that this request speaks more to the hearts of developers |
| 19 |
than it does end-users. End-users don't really care as long as it fits on |
| 20 |
their hard drive, because they don't know any better. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Yes, it burns cpu power and time, but if you want bleeding edge, so |
| 23 |
> please, leave the configure/make/make install method as is. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Your opinion is noted, but I (and others) disagree. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> And when those "patch-releases" (kde 3.0.1/3.0.2 etc.) will come out, |
| 30 |
> not only one application is patched. |
| 31 |
> All other patches are not directly for the public. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Not true. If something is critically broken, there is patch for a good |
| 34 |
reason. If there hasn't been a KDE release, it just means that the those |
| 35 |
patches (and others) are waiting to go through their QA for a release. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> You can't do it normally. If you do it, you have to split up the source |
| 39 |
> packages. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Again, that is not true. It's handled by makefiles. There is no need to |
| 43 |
split up the source packages. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Ahhhh....so, you want to have kdenetwork-kmail-3.1-patchlvl-99 2 |
| 46 |
> rc7.ebuild and kdenetwork-knode-patchlvl-98 1 rc5.ebuild ? |
| 47 |
> How would you handle all this patch things? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
The KDE stuff is handled by an eclass where this is already handled and if |
| 50 |
desired can be further refined. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> easier then to write new ebuilds for kde patch level 666 rc9 |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Disagree. Writing the initial ebuilds is the difficult part. Maintaining |
| 57 |
them is easy. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> if you don't have time to download and to recompile, use redhat, suse, |
| 61 |
> mandrake,debian. |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
That's a little arrogant, imo. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Right back at you -- if you don't have an open mind about how these |
| 67 |
binaries get built, maybe you should be using another system. The point |
| 68 |
of a system like Gentoo is to put more control in the hands of the users |
| 69 |
by providing a system like Portage. If we were not attempting to make |
| 70 |
this as flexible and granular as possible, I believe it would be suitable |
| 71 |
for some other system. But this is Gentoo, this is why most of us are |
| 72 |
here. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
We're not here merely to keep our machines busy compiling code. |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
Cheers, |
| 77 |
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@×××××.com] |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
-- |
| 80 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives