1 |
On Saturday 18 September 2004 22:19, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
2 |
> The way I see it is that part of the problem with dependency resolution |
3 |
> is that we're source based. Debian and the other binary based distros |
4 |
> have an easier time because for them it (probably) boils down to compile |
5 |
> once, and then split the binaries, libraries and headers into separate |
6 |
> binary trees and do the dependency resolution on those. For example, |
7 |
> you compile kdelibs, separate out kdelib and khtml and make the latter |
8 |
> depend on the former, et voila. With Gentoo this process takes on a |
9 |
> much much higher complexity. |
10 |
|
11 |
I'm probably missing your point. How are the dependencies more complex for us? |
12 |
KDE apps have very few DEPENDS that aren't also RDEPENDS, so if we had |
13 |
separate ebuilds for all the apps, it would be relatively easy to enter all |
14 |
the dependencies - it would only require major effort once. |
15 |
|
16 |
AFAICS the only complex dependency issue arises if you want to separate |
17 |
kdelibs into pieces as well, and iirc even debian doesn't go that far; I |
18 |
don't think we need to, either. |
19 |
|
20 |
Come to think of it, there is one other issue; some kde makefiles are badly |
21 |
written, and link against libraries built in the source tree under $S rather |
22 |
than against installed libraries under /usr/kde/.... To separate the library |
23 |
and app into two ebuilds we'd need to fix such makefiles. Because I'm |
24 |
speaking from somewhat dated knowledge here, and have nevr actually tried to |
25 |
fix such makefiles ;-), I don't know how difficult it'd be or how widespread |
26 |
the problem is today. |
27 |
|
28 |
Anything else I'm forgetting? |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Dan Armak |
32 |
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) |
33 |
Matan, Israel |
34 |
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key |
35 |
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 |