Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:43:51PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > On Thursday 17 January 2002 07:15, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > Therefore, a system that uses an efficient unified filesystem > > > > > implementation instead of a packaging system to keep track of file > ^^ > > > export > > PATH=$PATH:/opt/kde/bin:/opt/kde3/kin:/opt/qt/bin:/opt/apache/bin:/opt/apac > >he2/bin:/opt/koffice/bin:/opt/gcc/bin:... > > > > NO. > > By that I meant a filesystem that has "virtual" dirs, much like in Amiga and > BSD (IIRC). It was a tangential idea, but evidently it works much better than > messing around with a string variable. Give me a yell when all of Debian has this feature. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> no bod's kids are watching elmo... elmo's song pgp4Dm6eH2P8u.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Thursday 17 January 2002 07:15, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Therefore, a system that uses an efficient unified filesystem > > implementation instead of a packaging system to keep track of file ^^ > export > PATH=$PATH:/opt/kde/bin:/opt/kde3/kin:/opt/qt/bin:/opt/apache/bin:/opt/apac >he2/bin:/opt/koffice/bin:/opt/gcc/bin:... > > NO. By that I meant a filesystem that has "virtual" dirs, much like in Amiga and BSD (IIRC). It was a tangential idea, but evidently it works much better than messing around with a string variable. Thanks, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 12:45:36AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 January 2002 23:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >
> > Using that as the KDE root is just SILLY BAD WRONG EVIL.
> >
> > Do you also advocate having the apache root in /usr/lib/apache? After a
> > while it starts to defeat the whole point of /usr/bin. What next? A
> > Debconf note saying that you have to have "export
> > PATH=$PATH:/usr/lib/kde3/bin" in your ~/. to be able to run
> > startkde?
> >
>
> Apache is beyond the scope of discussion I think.
No, not in the slightest. We are talking about setting a Debian-wide
precedent, which is why I urge you to take it to -devel.
> However, as you indicate, if FHS compliance requires that people should
> change their PATH variables to run software installed in /opt or use
> ridiculously long pathnames then it is clearly something that should be
> avoided. My feeling is that packages ought to be able to install front end
> files by linking into the /opt/bin, etc. However, that is discussion of the
> FHS and not discussion on debian KDE packages.
Well, it says "don't stuff around with /opt/{bin,lib,...}", I think
that's pretty clear.
> > I register my vote of disgust. It IS difficult, in fact, because it
> > means we fuck around with how Debian has done things since well before
> > the Dark Ages. When you ask people what the best thing about Debian is,
> > they respond "policy" (in general; some say dpkg/apt). So what are we
> > doing? Random crap, I hear you say?
> >
> > Don't.
> >
> > Please.
>
> Of course I won't do any sort of change before there is some form of
> consensus. It's a small change, but without agreement it can't be done. Note
> that you are saying it is bad because it's a change to something old. :)
We need consensus from -devel, not just -kde.
> There are two choices KDE programmers favor:
> 1) Installing into /opt/kde{version}
> 2) Installing into /usr
>
> Debian does the latter, but... kde2 vs. kde3.
As I keep reminding you, KDE hackers are upstream, not Debian. They pump
out tarballs of an awesome desktop environment. We make it so you can
type "apt-get install kde", instead of building that stuff. I suggest we
keep this separation, unless coolo wants to take over the packaging
again.
--
Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If Theo de Raadt patches a security hole in the woods and there's
no-one there to see him, will it still be fixed in OpenBSD three years ago?
pgprAM8kHm10p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi DanielS,
I wouldn't suggest those changes without thinking over how it would be done.
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 23:55, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Using that as the KDE root is just SILLY BAD WRONG EVIL.
>
> Do you also advocate having the apache root in /usr/lib/apache? After a
> while it starts to defeat the whole point of /usr/bin. What next? A
> Debconf note saying that you have to have "export
> PATH=$PATH:/usr/lib/kde3/bin" in your ~/. to be able to run
> startkde?
>
Apache is beyond the scope of discussion I think.
If you hesitate to read FHS carefully, you'll see that those issues have all
been taken care of (somewhat).
The configuration goes to /etc/opt/. Front ends for packages,
binaries that the user can invoke from command line, can be linked to
/opt/bin. Or wait, is the FHS being a bit vague here?
Packages
may provide "front-end" files intended to be placed in (by linking or
copying) these reserved directories by the local system administrator,
but shall function normally in the absence of these reserved
directories.
This is a serious ambiguity. Does this allow distributions to place symbolic
links to /opt/bin automatically I wonder. I must ask the FHS people. If this
can be clarified, there is absolutely no reason why /opt shouldn't be used in
debian (except "hysterical raisins" which I don't take to be that relevant).
However, as you indicate, if FHS compliance requires that people should
change their PATH variables to run software installed in /opt or use
ridiculously long pathnames then it is clearly something that should be
avoided. My feeling is that packages ought to be able to install front end
files by linking into the /opt/bin, etc. However, that is discussion of the
FHS and not discussion on debian KDE packages.
[snip]
>
> I register my vote of disgust. It IS difficult, in fact, because it
> means we fuck around with how Debian has done things since well before
> the Dark Ages. When you ask people what the best thing about Debian is,
> they respond "policy" (in general; some say dpkg/apt). So what are we
> doing? Random crap, I hear you say?
>
> Don't.
>
> Please.
Of course I won't do any sort of change before there is some form of
consensus. It's a small change, but without agreement it can't be done. Note
that you are saying it is bad because it's a change to something old. :)
There are two choices KDE programmers favor:
1) Installing into /opt/kde{version}
2) Installing into /usr
Debian does the latter, but... kde2 vs. kde3.
Thanks,
- --
Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8RgKQfAeuFodNU5wRAha3AJ9CcFJtUQQulXVPGUw1+nqXt5U0YACfYVXw
z51tSVO/C38g1Q0wRFHq+mQ=
=JGH4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:39:26PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > On Wednesday 16 January 2002 14:09, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > > > > > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. > > > > It just happens that piece by Mosfet is well written. > > > > Although I cant see how putting kde in /opt/kde would be more logical.. If > > anywhere, I would put it in /usr/kde. Like X it is a system on its own, "A > > system within the system". > > We call that a "subsystem" in engineering. Heh :) > > Generally speaking, it's good design if a system can have physical modularity > to some extent, ie logical modularity is evident in the case of X11 but > physical modularity makes it more sensible to deal with. > > Therefore, a system that uses an efficient unified filesystem implementation > instead of a packaging system to keep track of file locations would be much > more consistent than Debian.[*] I'm hoping to see something like that with > the use of more advanced kernels. > > Thanks, > > [*] So every package looks like X11. Packaging system's responsibility is > making sure that the system is consistent and in a working state rather than > showing you which file is stored where... export PATH=$PATH:/opt/kde/bin:/opt/kde3/kin:/opt/qt/bin:/opt/apache/bin:/opt/apache2/bin:/opt/koffice/bin:/opt/gcc/bin:... NO. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> my sister's getting married she's still in el paso your borther must be a very happy man pgp48mFHFYUr8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:17:38PM +, James Thorniley wrote: > On Wednesday 16 January 2002 4:44 am, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > [Eray Ozkural wrote:] > > > that's why many RPM's have files in /opt. > > > > Ha! RPMs tend to spew files all over the place. Hardly relevant. > > > ... > > > However, your quote does imply that redhat, suse, etc. packaging which > > > installs in /opt/kde3 is indeed FHS compliant. I wonder who was clueless > > > enough to think otherwise upon reading FHS. > > > > I for one. And SuSe Red Hat have never impressed me with their adherence > > to standards. > > > > The fact of the matter is that SuSE and Redhat produce distributions where I honestly do not care what SuSE and RedHat do. We are not SuSE and RedHat, we're Debian. It's hard to express my next sentence without trolling, so I won't say it, but I'm sure you know what it is. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *mhp* I can't get myself to delete mail. it's like murdering someone pgpKRw6RjuQ1o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 04:55:17PM +0100, Hendrik Naumann wrote: -snip- > - From an sysadmin point of view it is realy nice to have MOST of the > programms and the mayority of diskspace under /usr. I think many > networks are planed that way. Shure one could just link /opt to > /usr/opt and everything work, but then lets just start with > /usr/opt. I don't know if this is the case on all commerical *nix but /opt is typically bigger than /usr on them, and on the machines I admin is much larger. So I guess the many networks planned that way (large /usr) are all Linux networks? /usr/opt isn't defined in FHS so would probably not be a good idea. Chris
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 08:55:02AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > the Dark Ages. When you ask people what the best thing about Debian is, > they respond "policy" (in general; some say dpkg/apt). So what are we > doing? Random crap, I hear you say? Not to mention the fact that one of the major reasons apt and dpkg get to rock so hard is that they have a nice, consistent set of packages to work with. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." pgpYKMVEgvk1e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:31:07PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > On Wednesday 16 January 2002 13:29, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > Note that *everybody* except debian uses /opt/kde3, and changing to that > > > would be beneficial. The current layout has to be changed in any case, it > > > is major brain damage. > > > > Changing the way Debian has packaged stuff for KDE3 and surprising the > > hell out of everyone is an astoundingly bad move. Don't do it. > > > > Why is Debian majorly brain-damaged in this regard? Policy of least > > surprise, because I think you'll find quite a few people surprised when > > we RANDOMLY CHANGE LOCATIONS ON A WHIM. > > Well the directory layout simply doesn't make sense. It's possible to be both > policy compliant and obey KDE conventions. Using /usr/lib/kde3 as KDE root > mainly. See my other mail to see how it would be done. This would remove a > lot of cruft from debian packaging scripts as well so it really is a good > thing. There are *very*, *VERY*, few times when I'm inclined to quote Jared Johnson (solomon), but this is one of them: bzt bzzzt! hear that it is the big buzzer that means you are wrong wrong wrong! still going off A BZT IT IS GETTING LOUD AND LOUDER SIGNIFYING THE PROFOUND WRONGNESS OF YOU BUAAR!!! Using that as the KDE root is just SILLY BAD WRONG EVIL. Do you also advocate having the apache root in /usr/lib/apache? After a while it starts to defeat the whole point of /usr/bin. What next? A Debconf note saying that you have to have "export PATH=$PATH:/usr/lib/kde3/bin" in your ~/. to be able to run startkde? > Add that the fact that KDE3 is not even properly packaged now: there is room > for improvement on that front. I'd though like to hear Chris's opinion first > as he is the person dealing with these issues. I'm still "prohibitively" busy > to engage in any hacking activity :/ KDE3 will be properly packaged the moment it can be installed side-by-side with KDE2.2 using *standard* *Debian* *layouts*. Let policy dictate what we do, not lines of crack. > Otherwise, only packagers and programmers care about KDE locations. The above > change would make both happier. Not to forget your average punter who doesn't want to type /usr/lib/kde3/bin/startkde, every time. > 1) Packagers can have very trivial build scripts, I can even provide a > Makefile to be included in admin/ dir. (And remove that redundant perl script > that dumps a text file BTW) > 2) Programmers can easily test their applications on a debian system by > compiling to prefix /usr/lib/kde3. Daniel's Amazing Fantastic Fabulous Mind-Rocking Guide To Building A KDE App On Debian: ./configure --prefix=/usr make su -c 'make install' > These are benefits not to be ignored. I say we go ahead and do a major > cleanup, it's not that difficult btw we are just going to change a few > makefiles that's all, and write a small text file telling people how they > should make debian KDE3 packages. I think an example kde-hello package might > make sense. I register my vote of disgust. It IS difficult, in fact, because it means we fuck around with how Debian has done things since well before the Dark Ages. When you ask people what the best thing about Debian is, they respond "policy" (in general; some say dpkg/apt). So what are we doing? Random crap, I hear you say? Don't. Please. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Culus fears perl - the language with optional errors pgpSWodtTdkPd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 03:43 am, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Jarno Elonen wrote: > > On Wednesday 16. Januaryta 2002 13:27, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +, James Thorniley wrote: > > > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an > > > > actual argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > > > > > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. > > > > No need to get personal, thank you. I personally like some of the guy's > > work and think his opinions deserve some respect, too. > > What he does is good, even if I do think that Aqua's crap, but I think > that he's on drugs for reasons that are too off-topic to go into here, > and I can't be stuffed elaborating them at all when I'm writing this > over lagged SSH. > > What he does is good, but that doesn't mean that he's not on drugs. if the reasons for your statement are too off-topic to go into, then the statement is inappropriately made in this forum, as well as being unsupported slanderous innuendo that should be retracted.
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, James Thorniley wrote: > The fact of the matter is that SuSE and Redhat produce distributions where > their installation of KDE is compatible with an installation from source of > KDE from ftp.kde.org. A default installation of Apache from source installs into /usr/local/etc. Should Debian try and be compatible with that? The whole reason you are using a distro and not, say, Linux From Scratch, is to get an integrated system that works consistently. > In debian, for some reason, all the docs have been > moved from [kde-prefix]/share/doc/HTML// to > [kde-prefix]/share/doc/kde/HTML//. This makes it > virtually impossible to produce a source distribution of a KDE app which is > compatible with all GNU/Linux distributions (unless you're in the mood for > messing about with the hell-on-earth that is automake macros, not to mention > I don't see why I should have to deviate from the standard automake macros > provided by KDE, since they work for every other distribution). apt-get install autobook. It should teach you everything you need to know about how automake etc. work. In particular the "impossible" feat you mentioned is very easy to resolve; Do: export kde_htmldir=/usr/share/doc/kde/HTML before running configure. In fact that's precisely the kind of things the Debian packages do. You could argue that is kind of thing isn't very well documented and you would have a point but a point in a different debate than this one. :-) > > Oh and btw, /usr/X11R6 and /usr/games were both UNIX traditions from > > before Linux and were grandfathered in to the FHS. They really shouldn't > > exist. > > Interesting you note this, since this kind of logical directory layout is of > course the traditional UNIX way. Yes and this is why my Solaris box has binaries under /usr/apache, /usr/ccs /usr/dt, /usr/dict, /usr/java1.1, /usr/java1.2 /usr/openwin, /usr/perl5, /usr/xpg4, and /usr/ucb and my $PATH is half a mile long. I don't see how an ever-growing list of directories makes things any easier for the user or the admin in the long run. We have modern packaging systems like rpm or deb. We don't need to rely on the admins overtaxed brain to keep track of things. > The FHS rather goes against traditional UNIX > thinking that most old sysadmins are happy with (see the Mosfet artical > again. www.mosfet.org/fss.html). I also happen to think that the consensus > from all other GNU/Linux distributions does add some weight - whether it's > truly standards compliant, they've all thought about it as a team of > developers and have come up with the same answer, and they're not stupid. > Actually all the major distros have agreed at least in prncipal to the FHS (as part of the Linux Standard Base or from before.) So it is just a matter of when they start complying not if. I know Red Hat 7.2 for example doesn't install anything into /opt. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > It seems that your reasoning that "/opt is reserved for things like Loki > games" is incorrect. See my mail titled "Interpeting FHS". > [...] > > That is a serious misunderstanding of "add-on". By add-on here it means > application software that is not essential for system functionality, such as > KDE. Saying that "distribution provided" software is not "add on application > software" is gross misunderstanding of the terms involved. Yes I saw it but you are still missing the point. English is not the most precise of languages but the meaning of add-on should be fairly clear. It is something extra beyond what is provided in the base distribution. So how would you define that for Debian? contrib and non-free which are not officially part of Debian? Any package of priority optional or extra? As you can see none of those packages are placed in /opt. The use of /opt goes back to the bad old days of commercial UNIX when vendors would try and soak you for every penny you had. (I believe with SCO even TCP/IP was an add-on at one point!) You would have a base OS and other extra packages you could purchase. Also third-party vendors would sell their own packages. Plus there was free software. All of those things were usually placed in /opt to signify they were not part of the base OS. For instance on a Solaris 8 system I have here there are only three things under /opt. /opt/gnome-1.4 is GNOME, not a Sun product. /opt/sfw comes from a CD of freeware they put out which again is not a Sun product and /opt/SUNWebnfs is WebNFS which is a Sun product but not part of basic Solaris. Now how do you map this concept of addons to Debian? All our packages, even the "extra" and "non-free" ones are first-class citizens. We don't sell enhancements or upgrades. Conceivably in the days of the licensing wars you could have considered KDE an "add-on" to Debian but not now. > > On the contrary, FHS says distributions can install software in /opt, except > certain subdirs reserved for the system administrator. > Does SuSe consider KDE3 to be a "preview" release or unsupported or sometheing you pay extra for? Then it would be legitimate to put it into /opt. If they are just too lazy to properly integrate it into their system then this is not something we should be emulating. > Before you give an answer to this, please read the mail I mentioned, and > section 3.8 in complete. > Also bear in mind the purpose of the FHS is not just to set policy but codify existing practice. Somethings may be allowed which are not necessarily recommended to do. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 23:52, Jens Benecke wrote: > > Yes. But using subdirs is required when there are too many files rather > > than the total size of files exceeding a threshold. > > Yes, and as soon as you define what "too many" is, those are identical. Eh. Still there is the case of a small software package with several files and directories. Most of my own programs are like that I believe. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RcZHfAeuFodNU5wRArslAKCar3QUM5b2AUPww2PoWRF1jCnOngCffXRY xizX4xICSoT1Kr4KAZNskZI= =V3n5 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi > > If KDE is packaged for Debian by Debian developers it is not an > >addon and _does_not_ belong in /opt. > > That is a serious misunderstanding of "add-on". By add-on here it > means application software that is not essential for system > functionality, such as KDE. Saying that "distribution provided" > software is not "add on application software" is gross > misunderstanding of the terms involved. I don't share your interpretation of "add-on". But I don't want to continue argueing about FHS and it interpretation. - From an sysadmin point of view it is realy nice to have MOST of the programms and the mayority of diskspace under /usr. I think many networks are planed that way. Shure one could just link /opt to /usr/opt and everything work, but then lets just start with /usr/opt. I also wouldn't mind /usr/kde /usr/gnome ... if that makes live easier for developers and package maintainers. It think /usr/games is sensless, but /usr/X11R6 is good to be there. Just my 2 cents Hendrik - -- PGP ID 21F0AC0265C92061 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RaJmIfCsAmXJIGERAh7EAJ99VZsBAUa0rRAiXUUM/ziRszFOpwCeJAjG x3eX6ShchBrtI04/IiiWkzE= =20py -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Interpreting FHS and KDE filesystem structure
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:09 pm, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:27, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +, James Thorniley wrote: > > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > > > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > > > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. Whether he's in this discussion or not, a personal attack is a flame, so not really relevant. > It just happens that piece by Mosfet is well written. > > Although I cant see how putting kde in /opt/kde would be more logical.. If > anywhere, I would put it in /usr/kde. Like X it is a system on its own, "A > system within the system". > > -Allan The reason I haven't been suggesting /usr/kde3 is it definitely would be against FHS. However I agree it would be better than /opt/kde3, especially if we take note of Mark Brown's argument (from Re: Interpreting FHS): > Deciding to use it [/opt] for KDE would, however, result in large numbers of > admins becoming more than a little grumpy with you as they notice that > you have decided to dump all of KDE onto their root filesystem. I assume by this we mean people who have /usr on a seperate partition, which is an argument for using /usr/kde3, but that means getting FHS changed.. hmm, possible but difficult ;) Thanks, James
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 4:44 am, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > [Eray Ozkural wrote:] > > that's why many RPM's have files in /opt. > > Ha! RPMs tend to spew files all over the place. Hardly relevant. > ... > > However, your quote does imply that redhat, suse, etc. packaging which > > installs in /opt/kde3 is indeed FHS compliant. I wonder who was clueless > > enough to think otherwise upon reading FHS. > > I for one. And SuSe Red Hat have never impressed me with their adherence > to standards. > The fact of the matter is that SuSE and Redhat produce distributions where their installation of KDE is compatible with an installation from source of KDE from ftp.kde.org. In debian, for some reason, all the docs have been moved from [kde-prefix]/share/doc/HTML// to [kde-prefix]/share/doc/kde/HTML//. This makes it virtually impossible to produce a source distribution of a KDE app which is compatible with all GNU/Linux distributions (unless you're in the mood for messing about with the hell-on-earth that is automake macros, not to mention I don't see why I should have to deviate from the standard automake macros provided by KDE, since they work for every other distribution). In fact, once I work out who is maintaining KDE3, that's all I will be asking them to do - mimic that standard kde directory layout under the prefix of their choice - I don't mind if it's still in /usr (it's just not ideal to me). If I was the maintainer, I would move it, but I'm not going to ask someone else to put up with the flames and the bug reports. > Oh and btw, /usr/X11R6 and /usr/games were both UNIX traditions from > before Linux and were grandfathered in to the FHS. They really shouldn't > exist. Interesting you note this, since this kind of logical directory layout is of course the traditional UNIX way. The FHS rather goes against traditional UNIX thinking that most old sysadmins are happy with (see the Mosfet artical again. www.mosfet.org/fss.html). I also happen to think that the consensus from all other GNU/Linux distributions does add some weight - whether it's truly standards compliant, they've all thought about it as a team of developers and have come up with the same answer, and they're not stupid. Yours, James
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jadhar, It seems that your reasoning that "/opt is reserved for things like Loki games" is incorrect. See my mail titled "Interpeting FHS". I recommend you to re-read the relevant section of FHS without resorting to certain preconceptions such as "In Debian /opt is not used". It is written in a plain and clear English that says no such thing as you say. > If KDE is packaged for Debian by Debian developers it is not an >addon and _does_not_ belong in /opt. That is a serious misunderstanding of "add-on". By add-on here it means application software that is not essential for system functionality, such as KDE. Saying that "distribution provided" software is not "add on application software" is gross misunderstanding of the terms involved. On the contrary, FHS says distributions can install software in /opt, except certain subdirs reserved for the system administrator. Before you give an answer to this, please read the mail I mentioned, and section 3.8 in complete. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RY2kfAeuFodNU5wRAqg8AJ43K1aSMgRkzxDdU1t3cQqOJYkwHwCeJLWf rCeRcotCSCjQpDbGOuhXSbw= =4WSR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 16 January 2002 14:09, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > > > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. > > It just happens that piece by Mosfet is well written. > > Although I cant see how putting kde in /opt/kde would be more logical.. If > anywhere, I would put it in /usr/kde. Like X it is a system on its own, "A > system within the system". We call that a "subsystem" in engineering. Heh :) Generally speaking, it's good design if a system can have physical modularity to some extent, ie logical modularity is evident in the case of X11 but physical modularity makes it more sensible to deal with. Therefore, a system that uses an efficient unified filesystem implementation instead of a packaging system to keep track of file locations would be much more consistent than Debian.[*] I'm hoping to see something like that with the use of more advanced kernels. Thanks, [*] So every package looks like X11. Packaging system's responsibility is making sure that the system is consistent and in a working state rather than showing you which file is stored where... - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RYKOfAeuFodNU5wRArKQAJ0TncDURKAnufkozdICQNnHEeNSawCgnS1t tnZXm1WY6HYRmwWK0DN37hQ= =K1a3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 16 January 2002 13:32, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Type mismatch here. You were talking about /usr, not /usr/share. Please > > ignore that earlier comment. > > Lucky, because my next reply was "Show me a serious bug on all KDE apps > and I will wring your neck". Heh, my previous mail can only be attributed to cheap drugs. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RYDIfAeuFodNU5wRAtGyAKCJTjgVkJ1jg2S1kSCpzHMNWWAkigCfc1X/ Jj2y4bESy2LC/6WHs0ZSHbI= =K3tp -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 16 January 2002 13:29, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Note that *everybody* except debian uses /opt/kde3, and changing to that > > would be beneficial. The current layout has to be changed in any case, it > > is major brain damage. > > Changing the way Debian has packaged stuff for KDE3 and surprising the > hell out of everyone is an astoundingly bad move. Don't do it. > > Why is Debian majorly brain-damaged in this regard? Policy of least > surprise, because I think you'll find quite a few people surprised when > we RANDOMLY CHANGE LOCATIONS ON A WHIM. Well the directory layout simply doesn't make sense. It's possible to be both policy compliant and obey KDE conventions. Using /usr/lib/kde3 as KDE root mainly. See my other mail to see how it would be done. This would remove a lot of cruft from debian packaging scripts as well so it really is a good thing. Add that the fact that KDE3 is not even properly packaged now: there is room for improvement on that front. I'd though like to hear Chris's opinion first as he is the person dealing with these issues. I'm still "prohibitively" busy to engage in any hacking activity :/ Otherwise, only packagers and programmers care about KDE locations. The above change would make both happier. 1) Packagers can have very trivial build scripts, I can even provide a Makefile to be included in admin/ dir. (And remove that redundant perl script that dumps a text file BTW) 2) Programmers can easily test their applications on a debian system by compiling to prefix /usr/lib/kde3. These are benefits not to be ignored. I say we go ahead and do a major cleanup, it's not that difficult btw we are just going to change a few makefiles that's all, and write a small text file telling people how they should make debian KDE3 packages. I think an example kde-hello package might make sense. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RYCdfAeuFodNU5wRAj6JAJ9ktrYg+7qcqFUeTNsRbvU3mN8I2QCeNak5 mf4GaSELQo8/Wqb7BypGLkI= =z46G -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:27, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +, James Thorniley wrote: > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. It just happens that piece by Mosfet is well written. Although I cant see how putting kde in /opt/kde would be more logical.. If anywhere, I would put it in /usr/kde. Like X it is a system on its own, "A system within the system". -Allan
Re: KDE filesystem structure
> > > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > > > > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > > > > > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. > > > > No need to get personal, thank you. I personally like some of the guy's > > work > > and think his opinions deserve some respect, too. > > What he does is good, even if I do think that Aqua's crap, but I think > that he's on drugs for reasons that are too off-topic to go into here, > and I can't be stuffed elaborating them at all when I'm writing this > over lagged SSH. > > What he does is good, but that doesn't mean that he's not on drugs. Even *if* that was true, it is, IMHO, a) his very own business and b) not something that one speculate about on a mailing list - especially "debian-kde". As a popular email tagline tells us: "No violence, gentlemen, I beg you! Consider the furniture! - Sherlock Holmes" - Jarno
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Jarno Elonen wrote: > On Wednesday 16. Januaryta 2002 13:27, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +, James Thorniley wrote: > > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > > > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > > > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. > > No need to get personal, thank you. I personally like some of the guy's work > and think his opinions deserve some respect, too. What he does is good, even if I do think that Aqua's crap, but I think that he's on drugs for reasons that are too off-topic to go into here, and I can't be stuffed elaborating them at all when I'm writing this over lagged SSH. What he does is good, but that doesn't mean that he's not on drugs. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * wiggy points people to arcanum.co.nz apparently it's fun wiggy: the last time you said that we lost an entire weekend of useful activity to cocklefighting pgpI3EB2YMuDK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wednesday 16. Januaryta 2002 13:27, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +, James Thorniley wrote: > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. No need to get personal, thank you. I personally like some of the guy's work and think his opinions deserve some respect, too. - Jarno
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 08:04:30AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > On Tuesday 15 January 2002 22:59, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > > > So /usr/share/apps violates FHS policy? That does not seem to be the case > > IIRC. Show me the policy in FHS and I will submit a serious bug to all KDE > > packages. > > Type mismatch here. You were talking about /usr, not /usr/share. Please > ignore that earlier comment. Lucky, because my next reply was "Show me a serious bug on all KDE apps and I will wring your neck". -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> it's not ALL: PARANOID, it's FUCKING: BROKEN pgpz6LgSE0GW0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 11:22:13PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > However, your quote does imply that redhat, suse, etc. packaging which > installs in /opt/kde3 is indeed FHS compliant. I wonder who was clueless > enough to think otherwise upon reading FHS. Daniel and Chris could you please > examine James' argument, it does seem to be valid. Oh yes, RedHat and SuSE do it that way, so it MUST be right! Clearly!! > Note that *everybody* except debian uses /opt/kde3, and changing to that > would be beneficial. The current layout has to be changed in any case, it is > major brain damage. Changing the way Debian has packaged stuff for KDE3 and surprising the hell out of everyone is an astoundingly bad move. Don't do it. Why is Debian majorly brain-damaged in this regard? Policy of least surprise, because I think you'll find quite a few people surprised when we RANDOMLY CHANGE LOCATIONS ON A WHIM. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is. pgpJavkHrle7Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +, James Thorniley wrote: > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> yip yip yip yip yip yip yap yap yip *BANG* NO TERRIER -- Michael Beattie's .signature pgpsSxd1315S6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 11:58:08AM -0800, Oliver Johns wrote: > The Debian policy is violated, in principle anyhow, > by the whole X-windows system. It DOES have its own special > subdirectories. The reason is that it is so large and > complicated that good sense demands putting it in a special > place to make it easier to keep track of it. The real question > is whether kde and gnome have now reached that status. I think > they have. For one thing, people who use both kde and gnome > experience trouble knowing which app or which library or shared > file belongs to which. It would be VERY helpful, and quite > rational, for Debian to follow, or even one-up, the other dists > and treat BOTH of those two mega-systems specially. I will not, under any circumstances, touch /opt. I believe Debian policy prohibits it anyway. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> net: No, it's more if you have an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of hard drives, one of them will eventually make a distro, package it up and go an IPO. pgpwDyvnhXOge.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 22:59, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > So /usr/share/apps violates FHS policy? That does not seem to be the case > IIRC. Show me the policy in FHS and I will submit a serious bug to all KDE > packages. Type mismatch here. You were talking about /usr, not /usr/share. Please ignore that earlier comment. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RRfufAeuFodNU5wRAtjtAJ0REf4iIQivh0v8H+e0xHKoTPJhBgCgoSdN jwLh78InjZbPFJrBQzqEyXs= =OFqW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 23:05, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > Why would a package having its own special subdirectories violate Debian > Policy? That is very common practice and it's a good thing for even small > codes. What exactly do you mean? Show me the section please. > You mean any subdirectory in a directory not allowed in Debian Policy of course, such as / or /usr. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RReQfAeuFodNU5wRArbCAKCWK7U8GZVFzVCMLqaRyJxN/Pfc1gCfQyqF uDyE11RRBPPJYraKVA2uOJ0= =q5B7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi David, On Wednesday 16 January 2002 00:23, David Bishop wrote: > > If you re-read what I said, I was complaining about how KDE uses that > approach: everything in the same directory. IOW, I already understand how > it works, and even partly why, but don't like it :-) I would *like* to be > able to have a debianized kde "base" system, and also be able to compile > *some* apps locally (kpilot in particular) without having to worry about > conflicts. IOW, the /usr prefix is fine, I just want /usr/local to work as > well B-) Now, as I have not volunteered to get off my buttocks and figure > out a clean way to achieve this goal, let alone actually *doing* it, all I > can do is offer my opinion accompanied by smilies... I obviously like KDE > (and debian!), so this isn't a showstopper for me, but it sure would be > nice... I suggest you to develop your own applications with your own KDE build, that's how (almost) all KDE hackers work. OTOH, you can have a debianized kde base system and be able to compile apps locally. You can install your applications to /usr/local rather easily making use of KDEDIRS environment variable (which must be set prior to starting KDE of course). I maintain both a /usr/local (for KDE 2 apps) and /usr/local/kde3 for my KDE3 coding. However, the best is to develop for KDE3, and then write a simple packaging script for debian so installing it on a debian system is a snap. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RRUVfAeuFodNU5wRAni3AJ0d3N5lDBQmrrF0mnjwAH+TqUbHdwCgk94O 0I0PWznG1ozwzCZhel2Ikjk= =hvJZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 23:44, Jens Benecke wrote:
>
> Yes, /opt can stay taboo. Right. What about additional subdirs in /usr?
>
> Actually, *my* problem with the current setup would be partly solved if
> mutually incompatible versions of KDE used seperate data directories.
> Something like /usr/share/applnk{2,3}, ~/.kde{2,3} etc. The binaries would
> have to be seperated as well, though. Somehow.
>
See my earlier suggestion. KDE version x goes into --> /usr/lib/kdex
To the KDE it looks as if everything is under that tree with aid of symlinks.
However, we do install files where they belong (ro arch indep files in
/usr/share/kde3, libraries in /usr/lib etc) so that everything is FHS
compliant and we keep feeling warm and fuzzy.
Thanks,
- --
Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8RRLzfAeuFodNU5wRAkGAAJ9Oenu4Nehj6avKAbpyRPCXeAOGWACfXGiB
lpyCszlo/434jZ5dqfg+yAc=
=QNlT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 16 January 2002 06:44, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > > Read carefully what the FHS says. (You can find a copy in the > debian-policy package.) According to section 3.8 /opt is for third-party > addons. If KDE is packaged for Debian by Debian developers it is not an > addon and _does_not_ belong in /opt. > ok. then, it's clear the other solution would do it. > Well I hope I've convinced you that it isn't. Should such broken .debs > actually make it into the archive they would get critical bugs almost > immediately. > Reading James' mail convinced me that it was. Somehow I forgot about the "third party" stuff. That was of course what prevented using /opt > > I was going to suggest creating /usr/lib/kde3, make this KDE prefix with > > symlinks to whichever directories are appropriate. For instance there > > would be a /usr/share/kde3, and /usr/lib/kde3/share would point to > > /usr/share/kde3/ > > Wasn't that Ivans' plan? > No, the one above was mine, you can find the mails to see when and how I suggested doing it, prior to anything Ivan said. > > However, your quote does imply that redhat, suse, etc. packaging which > > installs in /opt/kde3 is indeed FHS compliant. I wonder who was clueless > > enough to think otherwise upon reading FHS. > > I for one. And SuSe Red Hat have never impressed me with their adherence > to standards. > Eh, James wrote in a pretty convincing way. Sorry. It was my bad. > > Note that *everybody* except debian uses /opt/kde3, > > If it's not Debian it's CRAP! :-) > > Oh and btw, /usr/X11R6 and /usr/games were both UNIX traditions from > before Linux and were grandfathered in to the FHS. They really shouldn't > exist. Yes.. It does look inconsistent. Regards, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RRH2fAeuFodNU5wRAlaTAJ9oJCKCAdsgZ/V1uOrWP76IUazWhQCcDwXx gTw3d6RUWIot7TAXqX8HRA0= =24mr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday 15 January 2002 22:55, James Thorniley wrote: > > > > So I'm afraid it's wrong to say a move to /opt/kde violates debian policy, > > since it's in accordance with FHS. > > > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > > > > We know that FHS allows it, Read carefully what the FHS says. (You can find a copy in the debian-policy package.) According to section 3.8 /opt is for third-party addons. If KDE is packaged for Debian by Debian developers it is not an addon and _does_not_ belong in /opt. > that's why many RPM's have files in /opt. Ha! RPMs tend to spew files all over the place. Hardly relevant. > I have > some non-free packages such as icc that installs itself in /opt/intel. I'm > ABSOLUTELY sure that intel's build and release engineers are smart enough to > interpret FHS correctly (unlike some other people). It's not a question of non-free but third-party. Is icc part of any distribution? No. So it belongs in /opt. Were it to be packaged for Debian (or SuSe etc. if they gave a damn) it would have to go into /usr/bin, /usr/lib etc. On my computer things like Loki games, VMware, WordPerfect, are installed in /opt. But .debs even if they are of things I haven't contributed to Debian and never will, follow Debian policy and are in /usr. > It's actually a pretty > good idea, because the subsystem for a whole software package is defined very > well under /opt. As it is under /usr. > You just put the front end in /opt/bin. Very well. To comply > with the debian policy some symlinks would have to be made, that's all. > Also note the FHS says that /opt/bin is reserved for the local admin only. > It looks like /opt/kde3 is the proper choice for KDE after all. > Well I hope I've convinced you that it isn't. Should such broken .debs actually make it into the archive they would get critical bugs almost immediately. > I was going to suggest creating /usr/lib/kde3, make this KDE prefix with > symlinks to whichever directories are appropriate. For instance there would > be a /usr/share/kde3, and /usr/lib/kde3/share would point to /usr/share/kde3/ Wasn't that Ivans' plan? > > However, your quote does imply that redhat, suse, etc. packaging which > installs in /opt/kde3 is indeed FHS compliant. I wonder who was clueless > enough to think otherwise upon reading FHS. I for one. And SuSe Red Hat have never impressed me with their adherence to standards. > Note that *everybody* except debian uses /opt/kde3, If it's not Debian it's CRAP! :-) Oh and btw, /usr/X11R6 and /usr/games were both UNIX traditions from before Linux and were grandfathered in to the FHS. They really shouldn't exist. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
Re: Fwd: Re: KDE filesystem structure + metadata
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 15. Januar 2002 23:07 schrieb Jens Benecke:
> There is currently a large discussion (early developent phase) of how to
> introduce and "make useful" metadata (EAs, for OS/2 veterans) in Unix
> systems, on the ReiserFS mailinglist.
>
> ReiserFS-4 (see www.namesys.com) will get database capabilities and
> metadata features in the file system, so apart from the "standard" metadata
> attributes like thumbnail icons, comments ("downloaded from...", "last
> owner", "Author", ...), flags ("Important", "urgent", "Secret", see MacOS)
> and so on it will be able to store package information with the files AND
> quickly search for those criteria.
>
> Think a combination of slocate, dpkg -S, dpkg -L etc. as a filesystem
> feature, without extra files. Files will be relocatable without problems
> (move /usr/doc/* to /usr/share/doc/* and dpkg will still be able to find
> files of to-be-removed packages, by searching for the "dpkg.packagename"
> and "dpkg.original-filename" attribute for example).
>
> The big thing however is that (most of) those features will be available
> through a (planned) lib-ea, which will emulate them on file systems that
> don't support it directly. So you can have it on ext2 or ext3 (or FAT) if
> you don't want ReiserFS. As soon as the standard is stable and developers
> agree where (and if) to integrate them in other filesystems lib-ea can be
> updated and take advantage of the new features.
>
> If they do it right (and I'm following the discussion closely because I
> *want* it done right) this might very well revolutionize package
> management, apart from revolutionizing many other features ("where is that
> file I downloaded from this website whose title went something like "WaReZ
> d0wnl0adz"?).
Just like acl for ext2 with the same problem. All tools like and whatever
will not work with this, at least not without lots of patching and probably
breaking compatibility.
But sounds like a cool but mainly unused feature.
HS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8RLiZzvr6q9zCwcERAmubAKCrX7gOhMwuxUrmxIzVD2PB1cIsAgCfRk7w
KO87bgGOtS1WUhjNLTHumbA=
=GG/o
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [please don't cc: me. I'm on the list :-)] On Tuesday 15 January 2002 02:41 pm, James Thorniley wrote: > On Tuesday 15 January 2002 8:06 pm, David Bishop wrote: > > The only problem I have with the > > packaging of kde is when I try to compile something like kpilot (to which > > I contribute very little) and install, I end up having to put stuff into > > /usr, just to get it to work (i've never successfully compiled a kde app > > into /usr/local and had it work). However, that is no different than if > > it was in /usr/kde2, or /opt/kde or whatever. IOW, it's a KDE problem, > > not a debian one :-) > > Speaking now as someone who programs apps for KDE (rather than a > disgruntled debian user ;), the reason for this is as follows > If you re-read what I said, I was complaining about how KDE uses that approach: everything in the same directory. IOW, I already understand how it works, and even partly why, but don't like it :-) I would *like* to be able to have a debianized kde "base" system, and also be able to compile *some* apps locally (kpilot in particular) without having to worry about conflicts. IOW, the /usr prefix is fine, I just want /usr/local to work as well B-) Now, as I have not volunteered to get off my buttocks and figure out a clean way to achieve this goal, let alone actually *doing* it, all I can do is offer my opinion accompanied by smilies... I obviously like KDE (and debian!), so this isn't a showstopper for me, but it sure would be nice... - -- D.A.Bishop -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RKvOEHLN/FXAbC0RAqSBAJwOU08EOl6eFn/hFIL0IziPOsgIFgCg061J QxYvoKaBEVo0JBBF+lxkXZM= =Nbrf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 8:06 pm, David Bishop wrote: > The only problem I have with the > packaging of kde is when I try to compile something like kpilot (to which I > contribute very little) and install, I end up having to put stuff into > /usr, just to get it to work (i've never successfully compiled a kde app > into /usr/local and had it work). However, that is no different than if it > was in /usr/kde2, or /opt/kde or whatever. IOW, it's a KDE problem, not a > debian one :-) > Speaking now as someone who programs apps for KDE (rather than a disgruntled debian user ;), the reason for this is as follows Pretty much all KDE applications integrate to a certain extent with the KDE system itself, sometimes in ways that only make sense from a programmers point of view, not necessarily in ways which are very visible to the user (that directory /usr/share/apps is *packed* with kde stuff). This means that your KDE applications need to be installed under the same prefix as your KDE installation, in debian at the moment the prefix for the KDE packages is /usr, this means that when you compile a custom KDE app, you should use the command ./configure --prefix=/usr. Alternatively, you can download and compile the whole of KDE from ftp.kde.org (or a mirror) and compile that with a prefix of your choice. James
Re: Fwd: Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 22:51, Oliver Johns wrote: > > > On a more serious > > note, that's what dpkg -S /usr/lib/foo.so is for: a quick way > > to know what belongs to who. > > Yeah, and in windoze, all dlls are in \windows\system and > everything is in the registry. Unices are supposed to be easier > to maintain, IMHO. It should not be necessary to access some > registry in order to see at a glance what belongs to who. At > least that should be true for the mega-systems like X, kde, and > gnome. > KDE hackers have already thought of that. It's some third party people who caused the insensible kde directory layout. - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RJ4IfAeuFodNU5wRAkrcAJ9kPHH7s//G0VOC3g++wf+XVQcz6wCeI/s3 BbxAXbq0VnUYmt3EfEkt1Vk= =1eFT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 22:55, James Thorniley wrote: > > So I'm afraid it's wrong to say a move to /opt/kde violates debian policy, > since it's in accordance with FHS. > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual > argument for why directory layout should be more logical. > We know that FHS allows it, that's why many RPM's have files in /opt. I have some non-free packages such as icc that installs itself in /opt/intel. I'm ABSOLUTELY sure that intel's build and release engineers are smart enough to interpret FHS correctly (unlike some other people). It's actually a pretty good idea, because the subsystem for a whole software package is defined very well under /opt. You just put the front end in /opt/bin. Very well. To comply with the debian policy some symlinks would have to be made, that's all. There doesn't seem to be anything else the debian policy says that may relate to /opt other than section 10.1.1. 10.1.1. Filesystem Structure - The location of all installed files and directories must comply with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), except where doing so would violate other terms of Debian Policy. The latest version of this document can be found in the `debian-policy' package or on FHS (Debian copy) (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs) alongside this manual or on FHS (upstream) (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/). Specific questions about following the standard may be asked on the `debian-devel' mailing list, or referred to Daniel Quinlan, the FHS coordinator, at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. It looks like /opt/kde3 is the proper choice for KDE after all. I was going to suggest creating /usr/lib/kde3, make this KDE prefix with symlinks to whichever directories are appropriate. For instance there would be a /usr/share/kde3, and /usr/lib/kde3/share would point to /usr/share/kde3/ However, your quote does imply that redhat, suse, etc. packaging which installs in /opt/kde3 is indeed FHS compliant. I wonder who was clueless enough to think otherwise upon reading FHS. Daniel and Chris could you please examine James' argument, it does seem to be valid. Note that *everybody* except debian uses /opt/kde3, and changing to that would be beneficial. The current layout has to be changed in any case, it is major brain damage. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RJ2FfAeuFodNU5wRApCRAKCLwavosOWhyyf+qDT+mzwMrcJk+wCeOOQu FS515CCyzSknUuuXW7RIHsk= =U2UR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 21:58, Oliver Johns wrote: > > The Debian policy is violated, in principle anyhow, > by the whole X-windows system. How does X windows violate the debian policy? That doesn't seem to be the case. > It DOES have its own special > subdirectories. The reason is that it is so large and > complicated that good sense demands putting it in a special > place to make it easier to keep track of it. Why would a package having its own special subdirectories violate Debian Policy? That is very common practice and it's a good thing for even small codes. What exactly do you mean? Show me the section please. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RJmGfAeuFodNU5wRAlzNAJ4zofV4tbH9HaM44ENeglB03pMq0wCfUePJ PoC1PBCSKTzHslEEQgVg2g4= =Kr/y -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 20:20, Jens Benecke wrote: > The only argument from Debian people I've heard so far is that it is > 'evil'. > > KDE is no longer 'too small for an extra directory', the packages eat much I don't believe a debian maintainer would say something that idiotic. Many not-so-big packages will be using pkg*dir to install their files in (For ro files, libraries and such) as advised in GNU coding standards. > much more space than e.g. /usr/games or even /usr/X11. Yes. But using subdirs is required when there are too many files rather than the total size of files exceeding a threshold. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RJjnfAeuFodNU5wRAjfMAJsHafXdenLMUgR36MMz3HRrHIdNhACdEguD bXRwOmhG/n3PMLvxnoXz0nQ= =8HRb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 21:07, Daniel Stone wrote: > > And HEINOUSLY violates that little "policy" thing of ours that no-one > cares about. You put your own stuff in /opt/kde[23], that's what it's > for - your *own* stuff. For packagers, it's another /usr/local - touch > and burn. Also, in general, putting random subdirs under /usr is > exceedingly bad practice, and it also violates that little policy thing. > (Bear in mind that the FHS is also policy). So /usr/share/apps violates FHS policy? That does not seem to be the case IIRC. Show me the policy in FHS and I will submit a serious bug to all KDE packages. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RJgmfAeuFodNU5wRAsKMAJ9JpiKw6TdZKhsePj6Ls52Ia/EFRQCeJ6Ae +kXQcyaQoGGAXfDDco28xNk= =c3YH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 7:58 pm, Oliver Johns wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 11:07 am, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 07:20:08PM +0100, Jens Benecke wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > actually, why doesn't Debian go the /opt/kde3 or /usr/kde3
> > > way, like other distributions? E.g. SuSE has had absolutely
> > > no problems providing KDE3 beta RPMs for all users which
> > > don't interfere with the KDE2 setup at all, because they use
> > > /opt/kde{2,3} and ~/.kde2, ~/.kde3 subdirs etc..
> > >
> > > The only argument from Debian people I've heard so far is
> > > that it is 'evil'.
> >
> > And HEINOUSLY violates that little "policy" thing of ours that
> > no-one cares about. You put your own stuff in /opt/kde[23],
> > that's what it's for - your *own* stuff. For packagers, it's
> > another /usr/local - touch and burn. Also, in general, putting
> > random subdirs under /usr is exceedingly bad practice, and it
> > also violates that little policy thing. (Bear in mind that the
> > FHS is also policy).
>
> The Debian policy is violated, in principle anyhow,
> by the whole X-windows system. It DOES have its own special
> subdirectories. The reason is that it is so large and
> complicated that good sense demands putting it in a special
> place to make it easier to keep track of it. The real question
> is whether kde and gnome have now reached that status. I think
> they have. For one thing, people who use both kde and gnome
> experience trouble knowing which app or which library or shared
> file belongs to which. It would be VERY helpful, and quite
> rational, for Debian to follow, or even one-up, the other dists
> and treat BOTH of those two mega-systems specially.
>
> Does the Debian policy ever change?
Yes ;) its on version 3.5.6.0 now so there must have been some before that,
but this isn't really the mailing list for discussing it - I was considering
putting it to the debian-policy list, but then I did my research...
Personally I'm in favour of moving KDE (and GNOME) to more logical places
such as /opt/kde2. To quote the FHS:
The directories /opt/bin, /opt/doc, /opt/include, /opt/info, /opt/lib,
and /opt/man are reserved for local system administrator use. Packages
may provide "front-end" files intended to be placed in (by linking or
copying) these reserved directories by the local system administrator,
but must function normally in the absence of these reserved
directories.
Programs to be invoked by users must be located in the directory
/opt//bin.
So in fact /opt/kde2 would not be reserved for local sysadmins, only /opt
itself and the specified subdirs are in the style of /usr/local. Continuing:
Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or
delete software installed by the local system administrator without the
assent of the local system administrator.
(Filesystem heirarchy standard, Version 2.2 final, section 3.12.2)
So I'm afraid it's wrong to say a move to /opt/kde violates debian policy,
since it's in accordance with FHS.
I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an actual
argument for why directory layout should be more logical.
Many thanks
James
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) quoted above is available from
http://www.pathname.com/fhs
Fwd: Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 12:06 pm, David Bishop wrote: > Well, if it starts with a "K". ;-) That's why I suggested that BOTH kde and gnome should be given special directory treatment! Politics! :-) > On a more serious > note, that's what dpkg -S /usr/lib/foo.so is for: a quick way > to know what belongs to who. Yeah, and in windoze, all dlls are in \windows\system and everything is in the registry. Unices are supposed to be easier to maintain, IMHO. It should not be necessary to access some registry in order to see at a glance what belongs to who. At least that should be true for the mega-systems like X, kde, and gnome. > The only reason *I* can think of > to seperate things is if they start stepping on each other's > toes (use the same library, but different and incompatabile > versions, but the same major version (it's happened)) and I > don't know if it's to that point yet. I think it's getting there. "ls /usr/lib | wc -l" gives 1435 on my pretty minimal system. > The only problem I have > with the packaging of kde is when I try to compile something > like kpilot (to which I contribute very little) and install, I > end up having to put stuff into /usr, just to get it to work > (i've never successfully compiled a kde app into /usr/local > and had it work). However, that is no different than if it > was in /usr/kde2, or /opt/kde or whatever. IOW, it's a KDE > problem, not a debian one :-) > > > Does the Debian policy ever change? > > Yes, see debian-policy :-) Wish it would. Maybe Daniel or Chris could lobby for it on debian-dev. It would sure clean things up for people who want to keep up with both kde and gnome. -- Oliver Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> San Francisco, California USA GPG KeyID=A2ACE692 GPG Fingerprint=BE4A C1B8 EB0D 8FD9 737D CE4A 1E56 BF9B A2AC E692
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 12:58 pm, Oliver Johns wrote: > > And HEINOUSLY violates that little "policy" thing of ours that > > no-one cares about. You put your own stuff in /opt/kde[23], > > that's what it's for - your *own* stuff. For packagers, it's > > another /usr/local - touch and burn. Also, in general, putting > > random subdirs under /usr is exceedingly bad practice, and it > > also violates that little policy thing. (Bear in mind that the > > FHS is also policy). > > The Debian policy is violated, in principle anyhow, > by the whole X-windows system. It DOES have its own special > subdirectories. The reason is that it is so large and > complicated that good sense demands putting it in a special > place to make it easier to keep track of it. The real question > is whether kde and gnome have now reached that status. I think > they have. For one thing, people who use both kde and gnome > experience trouble knowing which app or which library or shared > file belongs to which. It would be VERY helpful, and quite > rational, for Debian to follow, or even one-up, the other dists > and treat BOTH of those two mega-systems specially. Well, if it starts with a "K". ;-) On a more serious note, that's what dpkg -S /usr/lib/foo.so is for: a quick way to know what belongs to who. The only reason *I* can think of to seperate things is if they start stepping on each other's toes (use the same library, but different and incompatabile versions, but the same major version (it's happened)) and I don't know if it's to that point yet. The only problem I have with the packaging of kde is when I try to compile something like kpilot (to which I contribute very little) and install, I end up having to put stuff into /usr, just to get it to work (i've never successfully compiled a kde app into /usr/local and had it work). However, that is no different than if it was in /usr/kde2, or /opt/kde or whatever. IOW, it's a KDE problem, not a debian one :-) > Does the Debian policy ever change? Yes, see debian-policy :-) - -- D.A.Bishop -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8RIutEHLN/FXAbC0RAocGAKCB0VKcGAnvXxzdxDrgyGxjGaRN0ACeLy2w +MAZsB43NMhbXr8I7+zBYO8= =SAM7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 11:07 am, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 07:20:08PM +0100, Jens Benecke wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:15:21PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > Like I've told you before, KDE3 is not my department. The
> > > extent of my KDE3 influence is talking to Chris on IRC;
> > > something I suggest you do if you want to become involved
> > > in KDE3 packaging.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > actually, why doesn't Debian go the /opt/kde3 or /usr/kde3
> > way, like other distributions? E.g. SuSE has had absolutely
> > no problems providing KDE3 beta RPMs for all users which
> > don't interfere with the KDE2 setup at all, because they use
> > /opt/kde{2,3} and ~/.kde2, ~/.kde3 subdirs etc..
> >
> > The only argument from Debian people I've heard so far is
> > that it is 'evil'.
>
> And HEINOUSLY violates that little "policy" thing of ours that
> no-one cares about. You put your own stuff in /opt/kde[23],
> that's what it's for - your *own* stuff. For packagers, it's
> another /usr/local - touch and burn. Also, in general, putting
> random subdirs under /usr is exceedingly bad practice, and it
> also violates that little policy thing. (Bear in mind that the
> FHS is also policy).
The Debian policy is violated, in principle anyhow,
by the whole X-windows system. It DOES have its own special
subdirectories. The reason is that it is so large and
complicated that good sense demands putting it in a special
place to make it easier to keep track of it. The real question
is whether kde and gnome have now reached that status. I think
they have. For one thing, people who use both kde and gnome
experience trouble knowing which app or which library or shared
file belongs to which. It would be VERY helpful, and quite
rational, for Debian to follow, or even one-up, the other dists
and treat BOTH of those two mega-systems specially.
Does the Debian policy ever change?
--
Oliver Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
San Francisco, California USA
GPG KeyID=A2ACE692
GPG Fingerprint=BE4A C1B8 EB0D 8FD9 737D CE4A 1E56 BF9B A2AC
E692
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 07:20:08PM +0100, Jens Benecke wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:15:21PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Like I've told you before, KDE3 is not my department. The extent of my
> > KDE3 influence is talking to Chris on IRC; something I suggest you do if
> > you want to become involved in KDE3 packaging.
>
> Hi,
>
> actually, why doesn't Debian go the /opt/kde3 or /usr/kde3 way, like other
> distributions? E.g. SuSE has had absolutely no problems providing KDE3 beta
> RPMs for all users which don't interfere with the KDE2 setup at all,
> because they use /opt/kde{2,3} and ~/.kde2, ~/.kde3 subdirs etc..
>
> The only argument from Debian people I've heard so far is that it is
> 'evil'.
And HEINOUSLY violates that little "policy" thing of ours that no-one
cares about. You put your own stuff in /opt/kde[23], that's what it's
for - your *own* stuff. For packagers, it's another /usr/local - touch
and burn. Also, in general, putting random subdirs under /usr is
exceedingly bad practice, and it also violates that little policy thing.
(Bear in mind that the FHS is also policy).
--
Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pill to Increase Your Ejaculation by 581%
* BenC has two kids already, so passes on that offer
pgpwHMR2vtg3C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 15 January 2002 06:15, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Like I've told you before, KDE3 is not my department. The extent of my > KDE3 influence is talking to Chris on IRC; something I suggest you do if > you want to become involved in KDE3 packaging. Surely. Chris, Harlequin and I should get together and discuss whatever changes might be useful. Thanks, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8Q7FdfAeuFodNU5wRAt+eAJ9HmA1T18QLe8y3t2sLNsunnZoMYgCfRZFp vDE/DqSOZv+bGIi5AwZ43Ug= =SkWI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:09:18AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Tuesday 15 January 2002 03:25, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:44:29AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > > Hi James, > > > > > > Your reasoning is right. KDE filesystem layout on debian systems is > > > terrible, and it is not what KDE was designed for. I'm going to have a > > > look at all those issues when I'm done with my thesis (2 weeks from now) > > > because it drives me mad as I'm trying to maintain a gideon debian build > > > and an own gideon build for hacking at the same time. > > > > Patches are, of course, welcome. > > It's too late to change KDE2.x packaging. Though KDE3 might benefit from > improvements. Let's discuss these when I get back (from msc. thesis > purgatory) and we can work on KDE CVS all together. Like I've told you before, KDE3 is not my department. The extent of my KDE3 influence is talking to Chris on IRC; something I suggest you do if you want to become involved in KDE3 packaging. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> aj: it would seem that the lawyer in question doesn't work weekends... :-( probably off stealing candy from babies pgp0PT8260Qr3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Daniel, On Tuesday 15 January 2002 03:25, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:44:29AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > Your reasoning is right. KDE filesystem layout on debian systems is > > terrible, and it is not what KDE was designed for. I'm going to have a > > look at all those issues when I'm done with my thesis (2 weeks from now) > > because it drives me mad as I'm trying to maintain a gideon debian build > > and an own gideon build for hacking at the same time. > > Patches are, of course, welcome. It's too late to change KDE2.x packaging. Though KDE3 might benefit from improvements. Let's discuss these when I get back (from msc. thesis purgatory) and we can work on KDE CVS all together. Happy hacking, - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8Q51gfAeuFodNU5wRArzNAJ9Acwdou35ey+tbT3/RBXJgtSg9AQCdEozv kvrqEq7/+by4XhhCazTOogY= =DvKl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:44:29AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > Hi James, > > Your reasoning is right. KDE filesystem layout on debian systems is terrible, > and it is not what KDE was designed for. I'm going to have a look at all > those issues when I'm done with my thesis (2 weeks from now) because it > drives me mad as I'm trying to maintain a gideon debian build and an own > gideon build for hacking at the same time. Patches are, of course, welcome. -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> need help: my first packet to my provider gets lost :-( sel: dont send the first one, start with #2 pgpmRQa2drEkb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi James, Your reasoning is right. KDE filesystem layout on debian systems is terrible, and it is not what KDE was designed for. I'm going to have a look at all those issues when I'm done with my thesis (2 weeks from now) because it drives me mad as I'm trying to maintain a gideon debian build and an own gideon build for hacking at the same time. Note that this is a mainly user/packaging list and you may not find an answer right here. I'm forwarding your question to kdevelop list. In kdevelop we're using generic KDE application templates, which uses the KDE autoconf/automake based build system. That build system, as you have seen, by default is not adjusted to work on the debian system. Your best bet is to develop for KDE with your own build. Then you can simply say something like --prefix=/usr/local/kde3 and you will be without any troubles. See the docs on developer.kde.org to see how. Thanks, On Monday 14 January 2002 15:02, James Thorniley wrote: > Hi, > > I've been programming software with KDevelop for a while now and recently > noticed my help system has stopped working - I think this is since KDE > 2.2.2 (i.e. it used to work with KDE 2.2.1). I have always used the > variable $(kde_htmldir) in the makefiles to install the documentation in > the right location, for example for my program kcast, the help file > index.docbook gets installed to $(kde_htmldir)/kcast/index.docbook. > Unfortunately, the if you go in to the help system, you can browse through > the application section and find my icon (I assume it works it out from the > .desktop file) but it can't find the documentation itself. > > A little investigation shows that my documentation has found it's way into > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/... whereas all the other kde docs are to be found > in /usr/share/doc/kde/HTML/en/... > > The reason for this seems to me to be that the automake/autoconf (sorry I > can't remember which one it is ;) macro that finds the kde prefix has > obviously quite rightly found /usr as the kde prefix on debian, and then > assumed that the documentation path is share/doc/HTML/en. The problem is, > for some reason the documentation has been moved on debian. I could change > my makefiles, so that they used $(kde_datadir)/doc/kde/HTML/en for example, > but then the install would not work on systems like SuSE, where they use > the standard kde layout. Can I suggest that KDE documentation on debian is > moved back to /usr/share/doc/HTML/, to conform with other kde > distributions? I realise the kde maintainers are a little busy at the > moment ;) so I'm not expecting instant results, but I thought it might be > worth sparking the debate since it might involve co-ordination from > application developers. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks for reading (sorry so long ;) > James - -- Eray Ozkural (exa) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8Q3ttfAeuFodNU5wRAmboAJ0Zu5dpomlpCvSDYRvELJ8elCre/QCaAlRv yCZ41OYM5hZY2b9V0X5VOzQ= =pQ6X -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE filesystem structure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 14. Januar 2002 14:02 schrieb James Thorniley: > The reason for this seems to me to be that the automake/autoconf (sorry I > can't remember which one it is ;) macro that finds the kde prefix has > obviously quite rightly found /usr as the kde prefix on debian, and then > assumed that the documentation path is share/doc/HTML/en. The problem is, > for some reason the documentation has been moved on debian. I could change > my makefiles, so that they used $(kde_datadir)/doc/kde/HTML/en for example, > but then the install would not work on systems like SuSE, where they use > the standard kde layout. Can I suggest that KDE documentation on debian is > moved back to /usr/share/doc/HTML/, to conform with other kde > distributions? I realise the kde maintainers are a little busy at the > moment ;) so I'm not expecting instant results, but I thought it might be > worth sparking the debate since it might involve co-ordination from > application developers. > > Any thoughts? This is a bad idea. The html-docs should be in something like /usr/share/doc//html like many other packages do this. Probably because of links in the html pages, they are grouped as kde. Why not checking the different possibilities for places. IMHO an install script should _never_ expect anything without checking. HS - -- Mein GPG-Key ist auf meiner Homepage verfügbar: http://www.hendrik-sattler.de oder über pgp.net PingoS - Linux-User helfen Schulen: http://www.pingos.schulnetz.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8QuaQzvr6q9zCwcERAmPxAKCj3SiGtXOYidgxrJZVsR4BsxHb3QCfVGpC y0GbksAUGRjeI0Uqg00oXzM= =lycw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
KDE filesystem structure
Hi, I've been programming software with KDevelop for a while now and recently noticed my help system has stopped working - I think this is since KDE 2.2.2 (i.e. it used to work with KDE 2.2.1). I have always used the variable $(kde_htmldir) in the makefiles to install the documentation in the right location, for example for my program kcast, the help file index.docbook gets installed to $(kde_htmldir)/kcast/index.docbook. Unfortunately, the if you go in to the help system, you can browse through the application section and find my icon (I assume it works it out from the .desktop file) but it can't find the documentation itself. A little investigation shows that my documentation has found it's way into /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/... whereas all the other kde docs are to be found in /usr/share/doc/kde/HTML/en/... The reason for this seems to me to be that the automake/autoconf (sorry I can't remember which one it is ;) macro that finds the kde prefix has obviously quite rightly found /usr as the kde prefix on debian, and then assumed that the documentation path is share/doc/HTML/en. The problem is, for some reason the documentation has been moved on debian. I could change my makefiles, so that they used $(kde_datadir)/doc/kde/HTML/en for example, but then the install would not work on systems like SuSE, where they use the standard kde layout. Can I suggest that KDE documentation on debian is moved back to /usr/share/doc/HTML/, to conform with other kde distributions? I realise the kde maintainers are a little busy at the moment ;) so I'm not expecting instant results, but I thought it might be worth sparking the debate since it might involve co-ordination from application developers. Any thoughts? Thanks for reading (sorry so long ;) James
