On Sunday 07 March 2010 17:14:48 Matthew Burgess wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > a lot easier when I gave up kde4 and cmake. > > I'm seriously considering giving up on it too, to be honest. The cmake > output clearly stated that I needed to use automoc from kdesupport, but > now folks are pointing me at old automoc tarballs. CMake Error at /usr/share/cmake-2.8/Modules/FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake: 70 (MESSAGE): Did not find automoc4 (part of kdesupport). Searched for Automoc4Config.cmake in using suffixes automoc4 lib/automoc4 lib64/automoc4. (missing: AUTOMOC4_EXECUTABLE)
I read this as it could be found in kdesupport, but you're correct this should be a minimum version check and a concise, clear message; things have gotten a lot better over the last couple of releases, for instance I haven't had to fuss with a cmake files in months! but, there's still a ways to go... > If the dev's can't > even be bothered to update their dependency documentation then it > doesn't bode well for the rest of what I might encounter. Various > howtos I've found on the net also point at pulling phonon from git, and > various other bits from their respective SCM repositories. That's not > for me, I'm afraid. How on earth upstream devs cope with bug reports > when they've no way of controlling/repeating what their users might be > linking against I've no idea. Well, in my opinion the current phonon situation is ridiculous. I haven't bothered to read the rational behind why kde is still maintaining/developing a branch, but it feels like there should be an effort to merge, and just maintain additional backends. (just to emphasize, this is my opinion based on what sounds/seems like common sense;) > Following on from the earlier thread discussing lightweight window > managers/desktop environments, I'm currently trying to get lxde put > together. lxdm requires consolekit which requires polkit which requires > PAM. Despite polkit accepting '--with-authfw=shadow' it bails as there > are assumptions all over the code on PAM being present. What was it I > said above about developers accurately detailing their dependencies :-). > Aside from that though, I think lxde might be just what I'm after! I've been tempted to drop KDE a number of times; the kitchen sink approach is a bit overwhelming and it's getting tiring, but the mail client keeps dragging me back. And really, things have been getting better ( I keep telling myself that.) > Matt. Just as an aside: There's been a lot of work from James Tyrer: http://techbase.kde.org/Getting_Started/Build/KDE4/LFS I can also provide my build notes, they're pretty specific to my hacked dpkg system, but may be a good reference. -- Regards, Trent. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
