[gentoo-amd64] Re: kdepimlibs requiring -kdeprefix?

[Duncan]

Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> posted
200901072311.14423.volkerarmin@××××××××××.com, excerpted below, on  Wed,
07 Jan 2009 23:11:14 +0100:

> it is way easier to rm&untar one directoy, than to have to hunt down 213
> binary packages.

... And you missed the vital bit, that for "live" packages the binpkgs 
get overwritten at every update.  Thus, the tarball idea, either tracking 
down those 213 (using your number) binpkgs and tarballing or otherwise 
archiving them so if the update screws them there's a fallback, or doing 
the much less complex "let's just tarball the whole subtree, easy since 
it's specific to the kde version anyway", becomes the only effective 
backup for "live" packages that normally change each time they are merged.

I ran into this back when I was doing the pre-4.0 livepkgs.  I normally 
use binpkgs (and as I've posted numbers of times, consider them one of 
portage's best-kept secrets) for the backup potential, among other 
things, but it just doesn't work that way with "live" packages, so there, 
if the "live" versions are changing as fast as KDE's have been and often 
break as KDE's were at that point, one either has to devise and alternate 
backup method, or will inevitably run into trouble at /some/ point.

That, in addition to the fact that to this point, KDE 4.x has simply been 
too broken to really do much with for those of us that tend not to be 
content with "the defaults", thus the reason KDE attracted us in the 
/first/ place, has been a big reason I decided it wasn't worth the hassle 
to keep the kde4 live versions running here, and unmerged them.

>> Personally I think it would be a lot simpler for users and us to only
>> have - kdeprefix in portage, and maintain live/snapshots that can
>> install into kdeprefixes. I myself maintain a stable installed in /usr/
>> and a live tree in /usr/kde/live...

That works just fine, until you try to have 3.x and 4.x installed 
together.  Then 3.x in its own prefix tries to use the 4.x settings in 
the non-prefix /usr, and broken functionality ensues.  There's a Gentoo 
bug about that, that I'm sure most folks trying to run both are already 
familiar with, but what I can't figure out is how upstream can live with 
it being that broken, since they're the ones that keep saying use kde3 
stuff where kde4 is still broken -- but when kde4 is breaking kde, that's 
kind of difficult!  Unless upstream has it working and something that 
Gentoo's doing breaks it?

> so if you want to install 4.1 and 4.2 at the same time (because 4.2 will
> certainly be troublesome until .2 or .3) you are screwed?
>
> http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=123108542712650&w=2
>
> "   - decide if we should provide +kdeprefix for stable releases and
> snapshots"
>
> sounds bad ... 'if' for snapshots... ? bad, bad.

Well, keep in mind that what they're discussing is NOT whether the flag 
should be there, but whether it should default to enabled (+kdeprefix) 
for those who don't have the flag set either way in make.conf.  Thus, in 
theory (there's that multi-hundred-package issue, but pre-set list files 
that can be simply dropped in package.use help there), it should still be 
possible for users to use package.use to set +kdeprefix as desired, thus 
enabling them to run multiple versions if desired, no matter which way 
the debate on kdeprefix default-use goes.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman