| 1 |
Am 24.12.2001 10:59:02, schrieb Guido Bakker <guidob@g.o>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>That's why kde should install in its own directory... It's too big, just like |
| 5 |
>X11R6... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yes, I agree. I would like to see kde in /opt/kde-${ver} or /usr/kde-${ver} like xfree. |
| 8 |
The most libs that kde-use are kde-specific and will never have a function in other applications. |
| 9 |
It's much easierer to manage multiple kde-version in full different trees... |
| 10 |
and the system now to manually compile packages with: |
| 11 |
KDEDIR=/usr/lib/kde-libs-${ver} ./configure --prefix=/usr |
| 12 |
i very very ugly. Some packages of kde-apps search header files in /usr |
| 13 |
not in $KDEDIR and then fail. I have created while do this with many apps some |
| 14 |
symlinks. But this is against the multi-version strategy |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Regards |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Sebastian Werner |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>-- |
| 23 |
>Guido |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>sön 2001-12-23 klockan 15.07 skrev Dan Armak: |
| 26 |
>> On Sunday 23 December 2001 15:44, you wrote: |
| 27 |
>> > That is why I'm against putting untested early-beta software in the |
| 28 |
>> > packagesystem. Because no matter how much unsupported they are, we |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
>will |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>> > always end up support it. |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> Well, I don't think kde could break anything but kde apps. And I'm |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>willing to |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>> support the beta ebuilds. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
>I wasn't talking about just KDE, but if we put KDE in I can't see why we |
| 41 |
>couldn't put all alpha-releases. And others might break things. So can |
| 42 |
>KDE3 if it installs over other files (like pilot-link installing over |
| 43 |
>glibc and stuff). |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
>And what I'm talking about here is not that the actual code is beta |
| 46 |
>(since very much of what is in portage now is "beta"). I'm talking about |
| 47 |
>beta-releases (which are only meant for developers of KDE/GNOME/foo, |
| 48 |
>depending on what kind of packages it is). |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
>> Of course I'd put up a 'don't use unless you know what you're doing' |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
>notice, |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
>> and mask them thoroughly. And support would be probably slower/more |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
>sparse, |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
>> but not necessarily so since I'll probably be using kde3 myself all |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
>the time |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
>> before long, and I know some other people will do so too before the |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
>final |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
>> release. |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
>Yes probably, and that is what frightens me. |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
>> As for problems that are rooted in kde3 as such (not just beta |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
>trouble), the |
| 73 |
> |
| 74 |
>> more input and testers the better - as long as they understand that |
| 75 |
> |
| 76 |
>it's not |
| 77 |
> |
| 78 |
>> *supposed* to be stable. As I've said, better solve these now than |
| 79 |
> |
| 80 |
>when |
| 81 |
> |
| 82 |
>> kde3-final comes out. |
| 83 |
> |
| 84 |
>Problems that come out of your ebuilds, yes, but really, if the tarballs |
| 85 |
>used had been tested before being made available in Portage the job of |
| 86 |
>finding errors in the ebuilds would be less. |
| 87 |
> |
| 88 |
>Regards, |
| 89 |
> Mikael Hallendal |
| 90 |
> |
| 91 |
>_______________________________________________ |
| 92 |
>gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 93 |
>gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 94 |
>http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 95 |
> |
Archives