Re: KDE3 and KDE2 side by side
On Sunday 28 July 2002 12:09 pm, gerhard wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there a point to discuss the way how kde is packaged at this
> time? Or are we wrong with our thinking about that issue?
From my point of view it is never the wrong time thinking about how things
could be improved ;)
> If not: Is there someone who intend to work on that kind of
> packaging KDE?
Depends. Maybe this is more related to the packaging policy? There are quite
a few possible mechanisms that would support this kind of functionality. See
the various versions of gcc co-existing with each other. It's a lot of
patching and work prefixing each binary with the version number. Doing this
on a directory level is better from my point of view.
But maybe there is something more general about the Debian packaging policy
that needs discussing? Should such substantial projects like kde or gnome
(sorry if I missed out on _your_ project here ;) really be packaged in such a
rigid manner? Often one needs to go back a version, or use a different one
because a crucial feature has been broken in the new release. I've
encountered that scenario multiple fold.
In the particular case of kde3 (even if some parts are alpha) it would be very
useful if test packages could co-exist with the stable and well-tested
version. It would also (hopefully) reduce the risk of 3rd party packages
(like the unofficial debian kde3 debs) causing mayhem on the system.
I don't mind starting to work on this, but before I get my sleeves up I would
prefer having a good picture of all the issues.
It's encouraging to know that a feature such as --prefix to dpkg would be
appreciated... just not quite sure whether begging is my forte \grin{}
BTW I've got other gripes with dpkg. Like the abscence of indexes. Being
able to query which packages are in a logical group (ie dpkg -l -g editors,
listing all packages that belong to the editors group for eg). The current
partitioning scheme is way too general for the number of packages debian
handles nowadays. (Was ok in the early days).
Still, the debian packaging system is still the best around IMO.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE3 and KDE2 side by side
On Saturday 27 July 2002 2:17 pm, Gerhard Gaussling wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 25. Juli 2002 14:51 schrieb Nikita V. Youshchenko: > is there anybody who is planning to work on an unofficial > deb-package of KDE 3.1 that could be set to /opt or something > similar, to avoid conflicts with KDE 2.x ? I heard about hours of > compilingtime and other complications to compile kde from source. Yes, compilation can take quite a while. Note that I never managed to get it working with gcc-3.1 (compiles but dcop doesn't work). The 'standard' debian gcc/g++ in sid works a treat (didn't try this with woody). Hmmm, maybe one should change the way kde is packaged. Would it be possible to package kde like /opt/kde//... or something similar? This would not be that much of a problem if dpkg would support different install root directories, maybe something like dpkg --prefix=/opt/kde/3.0.2 -i ... Am I barfing up the wrong tree here? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE3 and KDE2 side by side
On Thursday 25 July 2002 2:51 pm, Chris Cheney wrote: > Multiple versions of KDE can not be installed into the same hierarchy > and this is not a limitation of Debian, it is a limitation of how KDE > works. You can of course have one version in /usr and one somewhere > else like /opt or /usr/local. Why is this a limitation of how KDE works. I don't understand. What would KDE have to do so that this is possible? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE3 in sid update
On Tuesday 23 July 2002 1:17 pm, Chris Cheney wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 12:56:15AM +0100, Nicolai P Guba wrote: > -snip- > > > I don't understand. What has gcc 3.0.1 to do with it. It's not even in > > unstable and I have been running it for years now. In fact, this one > > right here is 3.0.2 compiled with > > The original post was a typo, it was supposed to read 3.1.0, however > 3.1.0 was buggy and it appears 3.2 will probably be the one debian > switches to. GCC 3.2 should be released today, but I do not know how > long it will take to switch to it. Ah! Indeed, I first tried getting it going with gcc-3.1 and I had no joy. Compiled alright but dcop didn't like it at all! Maybe I've got more luck with gcc 3.2. I'll definitively give it a whirl ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE3 in sid update
On Friday 19 July 2002 7:40 pm, Derek Gladding wrote: > On Friday 19 July 2002 11:33 am, Nicolai P Guba wrote: > > On Friday 19 July 2002 5:52 pm, Paul Cupis wrote: > > > On Friday 19 July 2002 17:04, Joseph W. Schlecht wrote: > > > > How about another update regarding when we might see KDE3 > > > > packages go into sid? > > > > > > Quoting the current topic for #debian-kde, it will go into sid when > > > woody is released. > > > > Darn. On this one it's a bit of a 'letdown' from Debian (who > > arguably has the best packaging system available). Are there any > > reasons why 3.0.2 is not available? > > It's in the list archives - iirc, Debian will be changing to gcc 3.0.1 > after woody, and KDE3 will be entering sid at this point. I don't understand. What has gcc 3.0.1 to do with it. It's not even in unstable and I have been running it for years now. In fact, this one right here is 3.0.2 compiled with [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/specs gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease) I just don't understand this rationale. Maybe someone could shed some light on this? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE3 in sid update
On Friday 19 July 2002 5:52 pm, Paul Cupis wrote: > On Friday 19 July 2002 17:04, Joseph W. Schlecht wrote: > > How about another update regarding when we might see KDE3 packages go > > into sid? > > Quoting the current topic for #debian-kde, it will go into sid when woody > is released. Darn. On this one it's a bit of a 'letdown' from Debian (who arguably has the best packaging system available). Are there any reasons why 3.0.2 is not available? I notice it comes with handy ./debian directories containing all the build info. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: since kde3 my startkde script is not called anymore
On Thursday 18 July 2002 7:41 pm, Shao, Lin wrote: > Thanks for the replies. .xprofile didn't work either. And I've not tried > and don't want to mess with configuration files in /etc. There should be a > place where I can find the official documentation of KDE-Debian and > description on the official way of how to do KDE startup in Debian. Does > anyone know? This depends how much you now renamed etc... There are a few possiblities to start X. Usually xinit or startx. startx recognises two files: ~/.Xsession ~/.xsession Make sure they have the executable bit set, and contain #!/bin/sh at the top Hope this helps... .xsession Description: application/shellscript
Re: noatun
On Tuesday 16 July 2002 5:39 pm, David Gibb wrote: > Hmm. Now noatun works. And I don't know why. > > I'm confused, but not complaining ;) Maybe you've been rude to it and --as result-- refused to collaborate? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
