On Saturday 20 December 2008 14:35:13 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Saturday 20 December 2008 11:53:05 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >>> You can start by giving the relevant information, like what exactly > >>> related to kde is in world?. Chances are you only have KDE there, and > >>> emerge will probably want to nuke all but the latest SLOT. Common > >>> problems with KDE: > >>> > >>> Put 'kdeprefix' in USE and rebuild > >>> Put KDE:3.5 in world and recheck. > >>> > >>> This last one often needs to be redone recursively to get everything in > >>> world that needs to be there. I've heard that autounmask helps with > >>> this > >> > >> kdeprefix has nothing to do with KDE3. It's not needed. It's only > >> needed to have many KDE4 versions at the same time. > > > > That's not true. > > Yes it is. > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/kde/kde4-guide.xml#doc_chap3 > > "This restriction does not apply to KDE 3.5 [...]. You can have a > non-kdeprefix version of KDE 4.1, KDE 3.5 and a live version of KDE > installed on the same system." > > kdeprefix is *only* for multiple KDE 4 installations.
Now go back and read my post again. I'm not talking about what the docs are talking about. I'm talking about kde-3* being installed into /usr/kde/3.5 and KDE-4 being installed into /usr/ and the resulting mess that happens when you get LDPATH, PATH and various other env vars set up wrong when you start a session. > > With USE=-kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/ > > With USE=kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/kde/4.x > > Yes, and KDE3 is *always* installed in /usr/kde/3.5 no matter what. > Therefore, kdeprefix is totally irrelevant here. No it is not, and you have not read my post properly. I'm not talking about the *installation* of kde-3.5 interfering with KDE-4, I'm talking about run time. I'm saying that KDE-4 co-existing with kde-3.5 is so much easier if KDE-4 is installed into /usr/kde. > > The net result, when co-installed with kde-3.x, is that your various > > *PATH variables will always have 3 before 4 or vice-versa. Which is a > > major pita trying to get 3 and 4 to co-exist. Try it sometime, and watch > > KDE-4 try to read KDE-3's config and data files. Or have KDE-4 launch > > konqueror-4 and always get it right every time. > > Has nothing to do with kdeprefix :P See above. > > There's only one sane way to install KDE on gentoo - always use SLOTs, > > always put every version in it's own directory in /usr/kde/, always add > > the relevant directories to PATH | LDPATH | etc at start-up. The other > > option is to have one, and only one, kde version at any time. > > You're misinformed, I think. For the reasons above :) > > >> I'll try the KDE:3.5 thingy. I wonder though why the heck I have to do > >> this. KDE4 should have been put in its own tree. > > > > Well that's your opinion, you are entitled to it. The KDE devs don't > > agree though, and their three of a kind trumps your two pairs. If you are > > going to assert that KDE-4 SHOULD be in it's own tree, then you are going > > to have to present a sane argument for why, and for why the existing > > decision is incorrect. Just saying something "should be" doesn't cut the > > mustard in this case. > > The reason is that KDE4 is a new product and has nothing to do with KDE3 > other than the name. And another reason is the problem I'm describing > in this very thread which should have not been a problem if KDE4 had its > own tree. Now I'm required to have non-straightforward voodoo performed > to get things right just because the devs made a wrong decision. It would *still* be a problem. The konqueror binary is called konqueror on-disk in 3.5 and 4. If you don't set up the environment correctly, which one is going to be launched? It makes much more sense to install all versions of all DEs calling themselves "KDE" the same way if you have two or more of them installed. If you only have KDE-4 and do not have KDE-3*, then elect to USE kdeprefix any way that suits your needs. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
