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/ \_/ |