Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss03@××××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Finer grained kde*-meta packages (was: Make portage assume, that a package is installed)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:16:00
Message-Id: 200706150510.08556.bss03@volumehost.net
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Finer grained kde*-meta packages (was: Make portage assume, that a package is installed) by Alexander Skwar
1 On Friday 15 June 2007, Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name> wrote
2 about '[gentoo-user] Finer grained kde*-meta packages (was: Make portage
3 assume, that a package is installed)':
4 > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss03@××××××××××.net> wrote:
5 > > However, I suggest that a cleaner method would be to not install
6 > > kde-meta or kdenetwork-meta at all but instead just install the KDE
7 > > applications that you require.
8 >
9 > Actually, I disagree.
10 >
11 > This would (obviously *g*) mean, that kde-meta cannot be installed
12 > (just as you say).
13
14 Yes, because the upstream kde includes, in particular, kppp.
15
16 > This means, that a whole "shit load" of packages
17 > would need to be manually installed. And all that, just because you
18 > don't want one or two packages?
19
20 Yep. You get kde-meta or individual kde packages or you get your own
21 ebuild that depends on a number of KDE packages. The Gentoo developers do
22 quite a bit of work just to give us kde-meta. Be glad they don't stick
23 you with the monolithic ebuilds.
24
25 > Nah. IMO that's the wrong way around. IMO the correct way would
26 > be to enhance the kde*-meta packages so, that they support USE flags,
27 > which allow the user to select what's to be installed.
28
29 I suppose that's a good idea in the future. Perhaps you should file an
30 enhancement bug. That said, I would prefer kde-meta install all the
31 packages that are part of KDE's upstream packaging by default.
32
33 > Eg. a "ppp" flag to select that ppp related stuff is to be installed.
34 > Or "filesharing" to disable filesharing related stuf
35
36 Do you suggest a global flag?
37
38 If so, what packages do you recommend this flags modify the behavior of?
39
40 If not, shouldn't it have a less ambiguous name?
41
42 > I mean, what's the advantage of the kde*-meta packages over the kde
43 > package, when the kde*-meta require just as much "junk", as the
44 > kde package does? Hm, really, what's the use of the kde*-meta package
45 > anyway?
46
47 The kde-meta package is meant to replace the kde package. The is no
48 advantage (and without a workable confcache, at least one disadvantage) to
49 running split ebuilds. The advantage of split ebilds is that you have the
50 choice to install only the kde applications you want, by using the
51 individual ebaulds, without dragging in all of kde (which is what "old"
52 style kde packages pulled in as a dependency.)
53
54 Are the monolithic ebuilds still available? They need to be purged from
55 the tree ASAP.
56
57 -
58 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
59 bss03@××××××××××.net ((_/)o o(\_))
60 ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
61 http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-user] Re: Finer grained kde*-meta packages Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name>
Re: [gentoo-user] Finer grained kde*-meta packages (was: Make portage assume, that a package is installed) Peter Ruskin <peter.ruskin@×××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-user] Finer grained kde*-meta packages (was: Make portage assume, that a package is installed) Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>