Re: Debian archive kde-3.1-beta2 paths broken
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 06:27:42PM +0900, Julian Stoev wrote: > Just to let you know, that the archive paths for kde-3.1-beta2 Debian > packages are broken and the archive can not be used with apt in Debian. > Or at least I can not figure how to use it... :( > > For examle currently the path (in one mirror) to the archive is > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/desktops/kde/unstable/kde-3.1-beta2/Debian/woody/i386/ > > But according to the paths found in > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/desktops/kde/unstable/kde-3.1-beta2/Debian/woody/i386/Packages.gz > the packages are expected to be in > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/desktops/kde/unstable/kde-3.1-beta2/Debian/dists/woody/main/binary-i386/ > > I suggest a symbolic link from Debian/woody/i386 to > dists/woody/main/binary-i386/ > > This will be fast solution, which will propagate in seconds if you > mirror with rsync. > Ralf, could you do this please? Or sed -e 's!dists/woody/main/binary-i386/!woody/i386/!' < Packages.old > Packages gzip Packages and upload the file? This should work imho, but the symlink approach seems better to me anyway. Thanks. > > Good luck and thanks for the packages! > Sorry for the inconvenience. I have no write access to ftp.kde.org, so everything takes bit more time. I will try to make things work out of the box next time :). > > --JS >
Debian archive kde-3.1-beta2 paths broken
Just to let you know, that the archive paths for kde-3.1-beta2 Debian packages are broken and the archive can not be used with apt in Debian. Or at least I can not figure how to use it... :( For examle currently the path (in one mirror) to the archive is http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/desktops/kde/unstable/kde-3.1-beta2/Debian/woody/i386/ But according to the paths found in http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/desktops/kde/unstable/kde-3.1-beta2/Debian/woody/i386/Packages.gz the packages are expected to be in http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/packages/desktops/kde/unstable/kde-3.1-beta2/Debian/dists/woody/main/binary-i386/ I suggest a symbolic link from Debian/woody/i386 to dists/woody/main/binary-i386/ This will be fast solution, which will propagate in seconds if you mirror with rsync. Good luck and thanks for the packages! --JS
Re: KDE 3.1-beta2
tisdagen den 1 oktober 2002 00.40 skrev Ben Burton: > Hmm, and taking a closer look the pixmaps *are* showing up in kword.files, > kspread.files, etc - so I suspect it's actually a case that they were just > left out of the koffice-debian.tar.gz that was uploaded. I only include the files I have changed in those tar files, so it should be applied on top of the CVS. I never intended to leave a buildable system, since that would mean packing sources too. > Hmm, okay, this is something else to discuss with calc since he does > kdelibs/kdebase. I guess he see this discussion and can comment on it as well as you and me. -- Karolina
Re: KDE 3.1-beta2
> The monolithic kdelibs I think is a > problem. Particularly if you want to install a single application on a > system that otherwise run another version of KDE, or that is not running > KDE at all. The same breaking up into smaller parts has already been done > with the "arts" package. This is something I guess you'll need to talk over with calc, who does the kdelibs stuff. > The xpms? I don't consciously omitted any xpms. It is not working properly > then. The should be there. This is just from looking at your kofffice-debian.tar.gz - the debian/ contains only one .xpm (take a look at CVS or the woody debs; there's an xpm for almost every app: kword.xpm, kspread.xpm, etc). These xpms are installed in /usr/share/pixmaps and used in the debian menu entries so users of other window managers still get pretty icons. Hmm, and taking a closer look the pixmaps *are* showing up in kword.files, kspread.files, etc - so I suspect it's actually a case that they were just left out of the koffice-debian.tar.gz that was uploaded. > Otherwise I changed some package names, to have the same kind of name all > over KDE, to avoid clashes, and for other reasons. For example, the devel > packages on debian often does not have the so number in the package name, > since they can't co-exist from different versions. kdelibs-dev belongs to > kdelibs, and not to kdelibs4. The libraries in kdelibs4 does not have > so-number 4, does not belong to KDE4, and that name can be quite > misleading. I have made some conscious decisions of that kind. Hmm, okay, this is something else to discuss with calc since he does kdelibs/kdebase. Ben. -- Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months. - Oscar Wilde
Re: KDE 3.1-beta2
måndagen den 30 september 2002 11.28 skrev Ben Burton: > Well clearly the more critical places where the packages differ is with > kdelibs/etc; these core packages are not my responsibility and I guess if > there's coordination involved it'll need to be between you and calc. Yes, since I thought that the changes will improve the packaging structure, and give less problems in the long run. The monolithic kdelibs I think is a problem. Particularly if you want to install a single application on a system that otherwise run another version of KDE, or that is not running KDE at all. The same breaking up into smaller parts has already been done with the "arts" package. > As for the modules I maintain that you've provided your debian/ for, there > seem to be some good ideas, some design decisions that I disagree with, > some removal of components to support non-KDE users (eg., xpms, HTML docs), > some issues of purely personal taste and some changes that I already have > in CVS in different forms (presumably made after you branched from CVS). I removed the HTML docs just since they take so long time to generate on my machine, and I figured it was no use generating them at this stage, where I rebuild quite often. They could easily be put back for all packages. It is really not a big issue at this point. The xpms? I don't consciously omitted any xpms. It is not working properly then. The should be there. Which docs are missing? Otherwise I changed some package names, to have the same kind of name all over KDE, to avoid clashes, and for other reasons. For example, the devel packages on debian often does not have the so number in the package name, since they can't co-exist from different versions. kdelibs-dev belongs to kdelibs, and not to kdelibs4. The libraries in kdelibs4 does not have so-number 4, does not belong to KDE4, and that name can be quite misleading. I have made some conscious decisions of that kind. To have one personal taste in one debian KDE module, and another in another, I think is a bad thing. You guys have not coordinated your personal tastes in the past. So I provided one personal taste for the whole thing. You can of course agree on another personal taste, but then do it. > Though > please take a look in CVS first as opposed to listing changes from the > point at which you branched, since there have been some significant updates > in CVS since then. I have looked quite a lot on your stuff, and done the same for all KDE modules, without further deeper investigation, assuming you are doing the correct thing. I just sometimes can't keep up. -- Karolina
Re: KDE 3.1-beta2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Again I should add that I'm not trying to hassle you; you've done some wonderful work. > My opinion is quite clear. Get it out in coordination with KDE 3.1 > releases. Get it into unstable (or whatever), already beta-tested, when KDE > 3.1 final is getting released. Though if your packages are significantly different from the packages that will move into sid, this beta-testing might or might not be of use; it'll be a good beta test of KDE but a less useful beta test of the debian packaging (which is what in particular this group should be trying to get right). > I don't know. We can cooperate and make one branch. Well clearly the more critical places where the packages differ is with kdelibs/etc; these core packages are not my responsibility and I guess if there's coordination involved it'll need to be between you and calc. As for the modules I maintain that you've provided your debian/ for, there seem to be some good ideas, some design decisions that I disagree with, some removal of components to support non-KDE users (eg., xpms, HTML docs), some issues of purely personal taste and some changes that I already have in CVS in different forms (presumably made after you branched from CVS). If you mail me with a list of which of your changes you think are important to have in the final packages, we can see what we agree on. :) Though please take a look in CVS first as opposed to listing changes from the point at which you branched, since there have been some significant updates in CVS since then. Thanks - Ben. :) - -- Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just because people don't know their myths and hardly read anymore, does it mean I'm cryptic or does it mean we're just very uneducated as far as our word paints. Our pallets are like four colors now. We're back to red, blue and what's the other one? See what I'm saying. I do feel sometimes that if it's not three-dimensional and so tangible that it can work back-to-back with Riki Lake and Jerry Springer then people think the writers aren't making sense. To me, the audience isn't making sense. I feel half the audience is working on a McDonald's mentality-and I have no problem with the french fries. They're all over my thighs. Left, right and center, they're there-you'll find them if we ever wind up in a coffin together. But I do feel like I'm encouraging college students to stretch. You all have a responsibility to understand your writers rather then rolling your eyes and concluding they're not making sense. Or maybe you're just a dingbat. - Tori Amos -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9mBlZMQNuxza4YcERAgWBAJwNnjxEsFULB7nLfa3Cc5G/WpkqUQCdEk3h VXRHMXUf1EbQlpcNExc6K9c= =nxS1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE 3.1-beta2
måndagen den 30 september 2002 02.30 skrev Ben Burton: > Hmm, just out of interest, what's the specific reason for having two > separate branches of KDE 3.1 packaging? I just took a look at the sources > and there do seem to be some non-trivial splits between your versions and > the CVS versions that the maintainers are updating. > > I'm not hassling you here, I'm just curious. :) I don't know. We can cooperate and make one branch. Just open up a discussion about how to coordinate the thing, and what actually needs to be done. There appears to be different opinions about what is the priority. My opinion is quite clear. Get it out in coordination with KDE 3.1 releases. Get it into unstable (or whatever), already beta-tested, when KDE 3.1 final is getting released. Some persons can make packages, some can test various things, some can work on future features of less importance, some can fix problems. There is a lot to do. Provide a good upgrade path through beta versions. -- Karolina
KDE 3.1-beta2 removal
I forgot to say. I have made it very easy to remove my packages by providing special removal meta-packages. This is the full list of such removal packages (present and future), each one removing everything from a KDE module: kde31beta-kde3-i18n kde31beta-kdeadmin kde31beta-kdebase kde31beta-kdebindings kde31beta-kdeedu kde31beta-kdeextragear-1 kde31beta-kdegames kde31beta-kdegraphics kde31beta-kdelibs kde31beta-kdemultimedia kde31beta-kdenetwork kde31beta-kdepim kde31beta-kdesdk kde31beta-kdetoys kde31beta-kdeutils kde31beta-kdevelop kde31beta-koffice I guess I could have a meta-meta package too, that will remove everything. -- Karolina
