Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:11:53 +0200 Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may miss a technical reason, but i don't understand why. KDE is perfectly usable with an other DM, such as gdm/xdm, so i don't understand why i'd have to install something i don't use. Weather it is actually needed or not I do not know but but the Require for kdm has existed in kdebase since kdebase-kdm was split from it and the additional mdkkdm created. Originally, since both Provide kdm, it was an either or installation but recently urpmi has insisted upon installing mdkkdm even when kdebase-kdm is already installed. Charles -- Charity, n.: A thing that begins at home and usually stays there. - Mandrake Linux 9.2 on PurpleDragon Kernel- 2.4.21.6mdk http://www.eslrahc.com - pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
More to the point, as of two dayas ago, the deps were screwed up enough that you could not do an upgrade without doing a no-deps on this (kde et al) and MANY other packages including samba. I agree this is unacceptable. Instead of arguing at length, at least get this much working correctly please. Bob Finch On Saturday 09 August 2003 06:53 am, Guillaume Rousse wrote: Ainsi parlait Jason Straight : On Friday 08 August 2003 20:25, Duncan wrote: On Fri 08 Aug 2003 16:14, Greg Meyer posted as excerpted below: On Friday 08 August 2003 02:21 am, Laurent Montel wrote: kdebase requires kdm, meaning you can't install kde without kdm/mdkdm kdebase will require all the time kdm. Doesn't it make more sense for kdebase to require dm and have all of the kdm/gdm/xdm/mdkkdm provide dm? Especially if mdkkdm and kdebase-kdm are separate packages. Why require a dm at all? There are those of us who prefer booting init 3, then starting kde from a console, avoiding the dm. For those of us who know that we also know we could force the removal. It's probably not a good idea for a newbie to not get a dm - and not requiring one would allow them to forget - or deselect one not knowing how important it would be to a new windows or mac convert. RPM has only one level of dependencies, meant for mandatory requirements, as opposed to DPKG who has two levels, mandatory and advised. No one should have to resort to --nodeps for normal system administration, just to make things a bit easier for newbies.
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Levi Ramsey wrote: On Sun Aug 10 22:38 -0400, Greg Meyer wrote: Cooker #1: I use kmail but not knode, so why can't we do like SuSE and allow me to install kmail and not knode and all the other stuff that comes in kdenetwork that I don't need. Cooker #2: But it makes it so much easier to manage KDE packaging to just keep it all together, and disk space is cheap now anyway, so that shouldn't be an issue. But it could force people to install potentially insecure software (such as setuid pppd) they would otherwise not need (none of our desktops need kppp, which requires pppd, since we have no desktops with modems, and I don't want pppd just so someone can read mail with kmail). Cooker #1: But I don't like having stuff installed I don't use even though I have the disk space. And what about the users on dial-up? Why should we make them download all of kdenetwork when all they need is kmail. Cooker #2: But it is crazy to make a zillion KDE packages. How will people know what they nedd? Pseudo packages (as I believe Laurent has done for some major packages already). Another argument in favor of splitting is that it minimizes the need to upload a massive package when one small component changes... Uhh, no, in this case the source packages aren't being split, so an update to one small component will mean an upload of a lot of small pacakges, which is actually probably more likely to fail (one package in 10 not making it can cause problems for the other 9 if it's the wrong package) , than the upload of one big package. Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/N8ParJK6UGDSBKcRAptjAKCzx+PjrG22mP3Bpr/YsLcnZSJnQQCcDC1B TQ66MIuFpFOJc52rbjQ0w00= =2w1/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. **
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Friday 08 August 2003 02:21 am, Laurent Montel wrote: kdebase requires kdm, meaning you can't install kde without kdm/mdkdm kdebase will require all the time kdm. Doesn't it make more sense for kdebase to require dm and have all of the kdm/gdm/xdm/mdkkdm provide dm? Especially if mdkkdm and kdebase-kdm are separate packages. -- /g Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book, inside a dog it's too dark to read -Groucho Marx
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Sun Aug 10 22:38 -0400, Greg Meyer wrote: Cooker #1: I use kmail but not knode, so why can't we do like SuSE and allow me to install kmail and not knode and all the other stuff that comes in kdenetwork that I don't need. Cooker #2: But it makes it so much easier to manage KDE packaging to just keep it all together, and disk space is cheap now anyway, so that shouldn't be an issue. Cooker #1: But I don't like having stuff installed I don't use even though I have the disk space. And what about the users on dial-up? Why should we make them download all of kdenetwork when all they need is kmail. Cooker #2: But it is crazy to make a zillion KDE packages. How will people know what they nedd? Another argument in favor of splitting is that it minimizes the need to upload a massive package when one small component changes... -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Take due notice and govern yourselves accordingly. Currently playing: Metallica - Cleveland OH Cuyahoga Falls Blossom Mus Linux 2.4.21-3mdk 12:15:00 up 6 days, 21:33, 11 users, load average: 0.15, 0.19, 0.22
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Mon Aug 11 23:07 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote: rsync can take this in account and tranfer less bytes, because if 10 packages are uploaded, but only one is really a new version, the other would only changed by some headers and the changelog. Not necessarily... first of all, in the case where we have monolithic packages, only one package need be updated (although all the kde* packages seem to be updated in unison) and this is the one with the significant changes are made. Furthermore, both source and binaries are compressed within the rpm, which is something guaranteed to confuse rsync (try compressing a large file, then making a slight edit and recompressing... diff output should be far more extensive than your edit would imply). The only thing that rsync helps with is the RPM headers, which for a package that's a candidate for splitting are generally a tiny portion of the RPM. -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Take due notice and govern yourselves accordingly. Currently playing: Whole Lotta Love.ogg Linux 2.4.21-3mdk 23:34:00 up 7 days, 8:52, 11 users, load average: 0.34, 0.29, 0.25
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Sunday 10 August 2003 09:45 pm, Texstar wrote: Its just crazy breaking all this source code into thousands of rpms. My thinking is the granularity is just a little too fine. I don't mind so much that the pieces are smaller - but i think they're TOO small. I'm also a little annoyed that packages who have libraries that are not designed to be used by other applications have been Libified . It's one thing if other apps will use the libraries (ie, xine) to be split - but since the application package and the lib package always travel together, what's wrong with leaving them as one solid package? On Sunday 10 August 2003 05:30 pm, w9ya wrote: More to the point, as of two dayas ago, the deps were screwed up enough that you could not do an upgrade without doing a no-deps on this (kde et al) and MANY other packages including samba. I agree this is unacceptable. Instead of arguing at length, at least get this much working correctly please. V.
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Friday 08 August 2003 20:25, Duncan wrote: On Fri 08 Aug 2003 16:14, Greg Meyer posted as excerpted below: On Friday 08 August 2003 02:21 am, Laurent Montel wrote: kdebase requires kdm, meaning you can't install kde without kdm/mdkdm kdebase will require all the time kdm. Doesn't it make more sense for kdebase to require dm and have all of the kdm/gdm/xdm/mdkkdm provide dm? Especially if mdkkdm and kdebase-kdm are separate packages. Why require a dm at all? There are those of us who prefer booting init 3, then starting kde from a console, avoiding the dm. For those of us who know that we also know we could force the removal. It's probably not a good idea for a newbie to not get a dm - and not requiring one would allow them to forget - or deselect one not knowing how important it would be to a new windows or mac convert. -- Jason Straight [EMAIL PROTECTED] icq: 1796276 pgp: http://www.JeetKuneDoMaster.net/~jason/pubkey.asc resume: http://www.JeetKuneDoMaster.net/~jason/resume.doc
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Sunday 10 August 2003 09:45 pm, Texstar wrote: Its just crazy breaking all this source code into thousands of rpms. How many times has this discussion been had before. I think the argument goes something like this. Cooker #1: I use kmail but not knode, so why can't we do like SuSE and allow me to install kmail and not knode and all the other stuff that comes in kdenetwork that I don't need. Cooker #2: But it makes it so much easier to manage KDE packaging to just keep it all together, and disk space is cheap now anyway, so that shouldn't be an issue. Cooker #1: But I don't like having stuff installed I don't use even though I have the disk space. And what about the users on dial-up? Why should we make them download all of kdenetwork when all they need is kmail. Cooker #2: But it is crazy to make a zillion KDE packages. How will people know what they nedd? etc., etc. Looks like the people in favor of splitting have finally won this argument. -- /g Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book, inside a dog it's too dark to read -Groucho Marx
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
Its just crazy breaking all this source code into thousands of rpms. On Sunday 10 August 2003 05:30 pm, w9ya wrote: More to the point, as of two dayas ago, the deps were screwed up enough that you could not do an upgrade without doing a no-deps on this (kde et al) and MANY other packages including samba. I agree this is unacceptable. Instead of arguing at length, at least get this much working correctly please.
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Monday 11 August 2003 18:27, Buchan Milne wrote: Levi Ramsey wrote: Another argument in favor of splitting is that it minimizes the need to upload a massive package when one small component changes... Uhh, no, in this case the source packages aren't being split, so an update to one small component will mean an upload of a lot of small pacakges, which is actually probably more likely to fail (one package in 10 not making it can cause problems for the other 9 if it's the wrong package) , than the upload of one big package. rsync can take this in account and tranfer less bytes, because if 10 packages are uploaded, but only one is really a new version, the other would only changed by some headers and the changelog. so, this can decrease bandwidth for mirror ( at the cost of having more headers ) -- Mickaël Scherer
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
On Fri 08 Aug 2003 16:14, Greg Meyer posted as excerpted below: On Friday 08 August 2003 02:21 am, Laurent Montel wrote: kdebase requires kdm, meaning you can't install kde without kdm/mdkdm kdebase will require all the time kdm. Doesn't it make more sense for kdebase to require dm and have all of the kdm/gdm/xdm/mdkkdm provide dm? Especially if mdkkdm and kdebase-kdm are separate packages. Why require a dm at all? There are those of us who prefer booting init 3, then starting kde from a console, avoiding the dm. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Re: [Cooker] Re: kde splitting: some problems
Ainsi parlait Jason Straight : On Friday 08 August 2003 20:25, Duncan wrote: On Fri 08 Aug 2003 16:14, Greg Meyer posted as excerpted below: On Friday 08 August 2003 02:21 am, Laurent Montel wrote: kdebase requires kdm, meaning you can't install kde without kdm/mdkdm kdebase will require all the time kdm. Doesn't it make more sense for kdebase to require dm and have all of the kdm/gdm/xdm/mdkkdm provide dm? Especially if mdkkdm and kdebase-kdm are separate packages. Why require a dm at all? There are those of us who prefer booting init 3, then starting kde from a console, avoiding the dm. For those of us who know that we also know we could force the removal. It's probably not a good idea for a newbie to not get a dm - and not requiring one would allow them to forget - or deselect one not knowing how important it would be to a new windows or mac convert. RPM has only one level of dependencies, meant for mandatory requirements, as opposed to DPKG who has two levels, mandatory and advised. No one should have to resort to --nodeps for normal system administration, just to make things a bit easier for newbies. -- Guillaume Rousse During that one ten minute period of the day when the sun blazes the hottest, Mother Nature invariably calls. -- Hotkowski's First Law Concerning Porta-Potties and Outdoor Antique Shows
