nightmorph    06/09/28 11:40:41

  Modified:             kde-split-ebuilds.xml
  Log:
  Updated kde split ebuilds guide, kickstarted (see, a k-pun) by deathwing00. 
see bug 149149

Revision  Changes    Path
1.11                 xml/htdocs/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml

file : 
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml?rev=1.11&view=markup
plain: 
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml?rev=1.11&content-type=text/plain
diff : 
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml?r1=1.10&r2=1.11

Index: kde-split-ebuilds.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -r1.10 -r1.11
--- kde-split-ebuilds.xml       2 Jan 2006 10:05:11 -0000       1.10
+++ kde-split-ebuilds.xml       28 Sep 2006 11:40:41 -0000      1.11
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
 
-<!-- $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml,v 
1.10 2006/01/02 10:05:11 neysx Exp $ -->
+<!-- $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/doc/en/kde-split-ebuilds.xml,v 
1.11 2006/09/28 11:40:41 nightmorph Exp $ -->
 
 <!DOCTYPE guide SYSTEM "/dtd/guide.dtd">
 
@@ -25,8 +25,8 @@
 <!-- See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5 -->
 <license/>
 
-<version>1.7</version>
-<date>2005-11-30</date>
+<version>1.8</version>
+<date>2006-09-28</date>
 
 <chapter>
 <title>The Split KDE Ebuilds</title>
@@ -36,27 +36,27 @@
 
 <p>
 Until January 2005, the only KDE ebuilds in Portage were 'monolithic' ones.
-That is to say, there were only 15 ebuilds (kdebase, kdenetwork, ...), and
-each one installed many applications that did not, in fact, depend on one
-another.  This was clearly a suboptimal situation, and not very Gentoo-ish,
+That is to say, there were only 15 ebuilds (<c>kdebase</c>, <c>kdenetwork</c>,
+...), and each one installed many applications that did not, in fact, depend on
+one another. This was clearly a suboptimal situation, and not very Gentoo-ish,
 but it was tolerated for a long time.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-The new 'split' ebuilds (for konqueror, kmail, ...) rectified the situation by
-providing separate ebuilds for all the separate KDE applications. This gave us
-a grand total of about 330 new ebuilds in the kde-base category.
+The new 'split' ebuilds (for <c>konqueror</c>, <c>kmail</c>, ...) rectified the
+situation by providing separate ebuilds for all the separate KDE applications.
+This gave us a grand total of about 330 new ebuilds in the kde-base category.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-We still provide monolithic ebuilds for KDE 3.4 and 3.5 and they are cleanly
-interoperable with the split ones. However, the split ebuilds are the new
-default, and there will be no monolithic ebuilds for KDE 4.0.
+We still provide monolithic ebuilds for 3.5 and they are cleanly interoperable
+with the split ones. However, the split ebuilds are the new default, and there
+will be no monolithic ebuilds for KDE 4.0.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 Finally, it should be mentioned that there are split ebuilds for Koffice as
-well. These provide kword, kugar etc. as separate packages.
+well. These provide <c>kword</c>, <c>kugar</c>, etc. as separate packages.
 </p>
 
 </body>
@@ -66,9 +66,9 @@
 <body>
 
 <p>
-The latest stable KDE release, as of this writing, is 3.4.3. The latest
-unstable (package.masked) is 3.5.0_beta2. Split and monolithic ebuilds for both
-releases are present in Portage.
+The latest stable KDE release, as of this writing, is 3.5.2. The latest
+unstable (~arch) is 3.5.4. Split and monolithic ebuilds for both releases are
+present in Portage.
 </p>
 
 <ul>
@@ -83,8 +83,8 @@
   <li>
     Finally, for the exact equivalent of one of the monolithic packages - for
     instance, to get all the applications included in <c>kdebase</c> using
-    split ebuilds - you can <c>emerge kdebase-meta</c> (or kdepim-meta, etc.)
-    To get absolutely all KDE split ebuilds, <c>emerge kde-meta</c>.
+    split ebuilds - you can <c>emerge kdebase-meta</c> (or <c>kdepim-meta</c>,
+    etc.) To get absolutely all KDE split ebuilds, <c>emerge kde-meta</c>.
   </li>
 </ul>
 
@@ -96,20 +96,21 @@
 
 <p>
 If you have KDE 3.3.x installed, you can simply <c>emerge kde-meta</c> to
-install the 3.4.x split ebuilds without disturbing your existing installation.
-The same applies to 3.5.x.
+install the 3.5.x split ebuilds without disturbing your existing installation.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-If you have the KDE 3.4.x monolithic ebuilds installed, you must unmerge them
-before emerging the split ebuilds. However, this process can be done for each
-monolithic ebuild in turn; you don't have to unmerge all of KDE at once.
+If you have the KDE 3.4.x or 3.5.x monolithic ebuilds installed, you must
+unmerge them before emerging the split ebuilds. However, this process can be
+done for each monolithic ebuild in turn; you don't have to unmerge all of KDE
+at once.
 </p>
 
 <p>
-If you're in doubt, remember there are blocking deps in place between each
-monolithic ebuild and the split ebuilds derived from it. Portage won't allow an
-illegal state to be created, so any emerge or unmerge it allows is OK.
+If you're in doubt, remember there are blocking dependencies in place between
+each monolithic ebuild and the split ebuilds derived from it. Portage won't
+allow an illegal state to be created, so any emerge or unmerge it allows is
+OK.
 </p>
 
 </body>
@@ -138,7 +139,8 @@
   </li>
   <li>
     Users of other desktops and leaner WMs can emerge a few KDE apps they like
-    without the (quite big) overhead of the rest of, say, kdebase or kdepim.
+    without the (quite big) overhead of the rest of, say, <c>kdebase</c> or
+    <c>kdepim</c>.
   </li>
   <li>
     Users can fine-tune the packages they have installed. Reasons you might
@@ -146,9 +148,10 @@
     
     <ul>
       <li>
-        You care about compilation time. <c>emerge kdebase kdepim 
kdenetwork</c>
-        takes far too long when what you really need is konqueror, kmail
-        and kopete. Besides, CPU time is money... somewhere.
+       You care about compilation time. <c>emerge kdebase kdepim
+       kdenetwork</c> takes far too long when what you really need is
+       <c>konqueror</c>, <c>kmail</c> and <c>kopete</c>. Besides, CPU time is
+       money... somewhere.
       </li>
       <li>
         You care about disk usage. Every unused package is that many megabytes
@@ -182,8 +185,8 @@
 <p>
 Split and monolithic ebuilds can be mixed freely. The only restriction is that
 a monolithic ebuild can't be installed at the same time as a split ebuild
-deriving from it. There are blocking deps in the ebuilds that enforce this, so
-you can do anything emerge allows you to do.
+deriving from it. There are blocking dependencies in the ebuilds that enforce
+this, so you can do anything emerge allows you to do.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -195,9 +198,9 @@
 <p>
 The split ebuilds are also the default ebuilds. This means that when some other
 ebuild depends on a KDE application, it will want to install a split ebuild.
-However, the matching monolithic ebuild will also satisfy that dep, so you can
-emerge the monolithic ebuild manually and then emerge the ebuild that depended
-on it.
+However, the matching monolithic ebuild will also satisfy that dependency, so
+you can emerge the monolithic ebuild manually and then emerge the ebuild that
+depended on it.
 </p>
 
 </body>
@@ -268,12 +271,12 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Previously, confcache had been considered as a way to lower the cost of
-repeatedly running autoconf-generated configure scripts. Confcache is a
+Previously, <c>confcache</c> had been considered as a way to lower the cost of
+repeatedly running autoconf-generated configure scripts. <c>Confcache</c> is a
 method of caching the results of configure tests. However, there is still no
-confcache implementation in the stable (2.0) portage tree. Even if one is added
-in the future, it may not come soon enough for us to work on using it in the
-KDE ebuilds; we may elect to wait for KDE 4.
+<c>confcache</c> implementation in the stable (2.1) Portage tree. Even if one
+is added in the future, it may not come soon enough for us to work on using it
+in the KDE ebuilds; we may elect to wait for KDE 4.
 </p>
 
 </body>
@@ -311,7 +314,7 @@
 allows selectively disabling subdirectories from compilation. Some people used
 to use it to compile subsets of the monolithic KDE ebuilds. For instance,
 running <c>DO_NOT_COMPILE=konqueror emerge kdebase</c> would install a kdebase
-without the konqueror application.
+without the <c>konqueror</c> application.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -327,7 +330,7 @@
 
 <ul>
   <li>
-    It completely breaks portage's dependency tracking. Portage does not know
+    It completely breaks Portage's dependency tracking. Portage does not know
     about DO_NOT_COMPILE, and thinks the entire monolithic package has been
     installed and can satisfy other packages' deps. This can cause other
     packages not to emerge or not to run.
@@ -346,7 +349,7 @@
     sufficient knowledge on the user's part. The only thing you can do with it
     is disable a few applications from compiling. It is practically impossible
     to use it to install only a few selected applications from modules like
-    kdebase or kdepim.
+    <c>kdebase</c> or <c>kdepim</c>.
   </li>
   <li>
     If I installed kmail yesterday and want to add korn today, using
@@ -377,7 +380,7 @@
 For completeness' sake, I should mention that maintainers from other archs
 have in fact complained about the increased workload of testing and keywording
 so many separate ebuilds. We're working to resolve this and it's a major reason
-why monolithic ebuilds are in fact still available for KDE 3.4.
+why monolithic ebuilds are in fact still available for KDE 3.5.
 </p>
 
 </body>
@@ -430,7 +433,7 @@
 
 <p>
 The objective here is to list all split kde ebuilds derived from, say, the
-kdebase monolithic ebuild. Once again, the proper implementation (such as <uri
+<c>kdebase</c> monolithic ebuild. Once again, the proper implementation (such 
as <uri
 link="/proj/en/glep/glep-0021.html">GLEP 21</uri>) would make this trivial.
 Today, however, you must become involved in the KDE eclasses' implementation
 details to some degree. So, if you use any of these approaches in a script



-- 
[email protected] mailing list

Reply via email to