Re: Why did I suggest /usr/lib/kde3 or /opt/kde3? (Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 16 January 2002 02:24 pm, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > The reason is that Ivan's yet untested approach will not work well > when users want to install KDE2 and KDE3 at the same time. > > In my approach, you can choose among KDE2 or KDE3 to your heart's > content. Note that the only file conflicts will *not* happen among > libraries, which is why you should install in a KDE prefix other than > /usr. There are many files that conflict, from the ground up. And > there is no easy solution except implementing my proposed approach. While this packaging/FHS KDE stuff is over my head, as a user and since it is being heavily air on the kde -user list I have a user comment. It seems to me that there would be only one version of KDE in Debian stable. How Debian gets to one version in stable is another matter. - -- Greg Madden -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjxHO/QACgkQaefA3q8KcpD6xgCfdO171l4+ZqQhY/72JgB6wE+f lWMAmweuFicejMFd9Nncc9Sosuqqq5Gv =LS8K -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Why did I suggest /usr/lib/kde3 or /opt/kde3? (Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?)
On Thursday 17 January 2002 16:10, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:57:33PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: [...] > > I suggest you to at least implement: "/usr/share/kde3" under which all KDE3 > > ro arch indep data should go in such as "/usr/share/kde/icons". Icons are excatly the example that shows that /usr/share/kde* is the wrong thing... > I have no beef with this. This is the sort of sane suggestion I wish > you'd come up with more frequently. I've always thought this should be > done, as /usr/share is just too cluttered. ... Please don't do this. Please keep same logical things, like icons, together. Otherwise searching for icons is a night mare. I've dirs get too crowed use subdir like /usr/share/icons/kdeX /usr/lib/kdeX That's okay but not optimal (IMO). KDE did the right thing (tm). Below icons is hi/locolor, then size subdirs. Because KDE does not care what kde package an icons comes from. In an ideal Debian system it would be the same, KDE, Gnome, fvwm ... put all their stuff together, because Debian does not care which packages includes the icons. At least that is my dream everytime the icons dialog pops up, and KDE has not the right one. If one want a view on files by package nothing can do better than the package tools. We don't need the filesystem for it. If one wants a bigger groups add eg. tags to packages so one can do apt-get update --tag kde -t unstable upgrade dpkg --tag kde -l Joe user looks for docs, icons, sounds ... Keep it together and Joe user is happy. Add good package tools and admin is happy. If both are happy you are on a Debian system ;) At least up to now. I hope it will not change. Achim [...] -- To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated. You discover truth everytime you use it. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why did I suggest /usr/lib/kde3 or /opt/kde3? (Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 17 January 2002 17:10, Daniel Stone wrote: > > That IS an ugly hack. The only package I know of that does this is qt2, > because that's the way it works, and there's no non-trivial way to make > it use the Debian layout without breaking every assumption made. > ls /usr/lib/petsc There must be others, too. > My suggestion was this, which I did roughly with apache2: > if [ echo $i | egrep -i ^kde ]; then NEWNAME=`echo $i | sed -e > 's/^kde/kde3/;'` else NEWNAME=`echo $i | sed -e 's/$/3/;'` > This might not work, you might have to tell it at build time... > > I suggest you to at least implement: "/usr/share/kde3" under which all > > KDE3 ro arch indep data should go in such as "/usr/share/kde/icons". > > I have no beef with this. This is the sort of sane suggestion I wish > you'd come up with more frequently. I've always thought this should be > done, as /usr/share is just too cluttered. > OK. Agreed then. At last we have an agreement :) > > Second suggestion is to implement "/usr/lib/kde3" and append the path to > > /etc/ld.so.conf like the atlas package does. It's the nicest way to > > handle that large collection of libraries. > > ICK, NO. Hehe, you're such a Stone. That's an officially supported way of achieving this. There's no problem with it, it's just as good as putting them in /usr/lib. Just have a look at how packages such as libc5 and atlas handle this. I'm certain there are others, too. 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 iD8DBQE8RurifAeuFodNU5wRAm6AAKCZzFJ3ZsUirUGKxYM9yUv5oh7iEACgkRHG MN89TeVu3G6WAkFpVxnGKC4= =HZpD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Why did I suggest /usr/lib/kde3 or /opt/kde3? (Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:57:33PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > On Thursday 17 January 2002 16:12, Daniel Stone wrote: > > No. > > > > Your original complaint was about cluttering the namespace. With this > > solution, not only are you implementing TWO ugly hacks (the > > /usr/lib/kde3 prefix and /usr/bin symlinks), but the namespace stays > > "cluttered". > > /usr/lib/kde3 isn't an ugly hack. why, then large packages which have their > file hierarchies in /usr/lib/ implementing an ugly hack? that's not > the case... That IS an ugly hack. The only package I know of that does this is qt2, because that's the way it works, and there's no non-trivial way to make it use the Debian layout without breaking every assumption made. > /usr/bin symlinks doesn't seem very good to me either. another solution is to > write a wrapper script that prepends the required path (startkde3). > there should be a single entry point to using KDE3. that way, you can choose > running kde3 or not in the beginning (which is a good thing), KDE2 apps would > continue running the same way. Oh god, please no. > you would simply move the binaries to /usr/bin which would be the cleanest... > wait, you can't symlink or copy KDE3 binaries to /usr/bin anyway, if you want > to keep KDE2 and KDE3 together. Yes, you can use the autoconf trick to > prepend all binary names with "kde3_" but that's even worse. My suggestion was this, which I did roughly with apache2: if [ echo $i | egrep -i ^kde ]; then NEWNAME=`echo $i | sed -e 's/^kde/kde3/;'` else NEWNAME=`echo $i | sed -e 's/$/3/;'` > Chris, have you been able to provide a set of KDE3 packages that do not kill > KDE2? Not yet. > I suggest you to at least implement: "/usr/share/kde3" under which all KDE3 > ro arch indep data should go in such as "/usr/share/kde/icons". I have no beef with this. This is the sort of sane suggestion I wish you'd come up with more frequently. I've always thought this should be done, as /usr/share is just too cluttered. > Second suggestion is to implement "/usr/lib/kde3" and append the path to > /etc/ld.so.conf like the atlas package does. It's the nicest way to handle > that large collection of libraries. ICK, NO. -d -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> i'm not so lonely that i need to install emacs pgpMyfcr864Hl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why did I suggest /usr/lib/kde3 or /opt/kde3? (Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 17 January 2002 16:12, Daniel Stone wrote: > > No. > > Your original complaint was about cluttering the namespace. With this > solution, not only are you implementing TWO ugly hacks (the > /usr/lib/kde3 prefix and /usr/bin symlinks), but the namespace stays > "cluttered". /usr/lib/kde3 isn't an ugly hack. why, then large packages which have their file hierarchies in /usr/lib/ implementing an ugly hack? that's not the case... /usr/bin symlinks doesn't seem very good to me either. another solution is to write a wrapper script that prepends the required path (startkde3). there should be a single entry point to using KDE3. that way, you can choose running kde3 or not in the beginning (which is a good thing), KDE2 apps would continue running the same way. you would simply move the binaries to /usr/bin which would be the cleanest... wait, you can't symlink or copy KDE3 binaries to /usr/bin anyway, if you want to keep KDE2 and KDE3 together. Yes, you can use the autoconf trick to prepend all binary names with "kde3_" but that's even worse. Chris, have you been able to provide a set of KDE3 packages that do not kill KDE2? I suggest you to at least implement: "/usr/share/kde3" under which all KDE3 ro arch indep data should go in such as "/usr/share/kde/icons". Second suggestion is to implement "/usr/lib/kde3" and append the path to /etc/ld.so.conf like the atlas package does. It's the nicest way to handle that large collection of libraries. 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 iD8DBQE8RuZefAeuFodNU5wRAtDAAJ9nXACKx9d+xJ4kQHVcNSyeRHSDnQCgmmzw +fcsOOn+el4kWnMzpIlEZ/Q= =MZm0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Why did I suggest /usr/lib/kde3 or /opt/kde3? (Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 03:51:27PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > On Thursday 17 January 2002 01:24, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > > > That's all that is needed! > > Something is left out. What do we do with binaries? I think binaries should > stay in /usr/lib/kde3/bin, and linked to /usr/bin. Maybe /usr/bin/X11 would > be an even better place. Would this be a good solution? No. Your original complaint was about cluttering the namespace. With this solution, not only are you implementing TWO ugly hacks (the /usr/lib/kde3 prefix and /usr/bin symlinks), but the namespace stays "cluttered". -- Daniel Stone<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> apt, karma dpkg dpkg has karma of 1 apt: '640K ought to be enough for anybody.' - Bill Gates, 1981 dpkg: bugger all, i dunno apt: The name is Baud..., James Baud ...but name is already something else... pgp7vW9jKZud5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why did I suggest /usr/lib/kde3 or /opt/kde3? (Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 17 January 2002 01:24, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote: > > That's all that is needed! Something is left out. What do we do with binaries? I think binaries should stay in /usr/lib/kde3/bin, and linked to /usr/bin. Maybe /usr/bin/X11 would be an even better place. Would this be a good solution? 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 iD8DBQE8RtbffAeuFodNU5wRAsZfAJ9PzfU1lm1G+/6bFvXf8F0DWLW5TACcDSYe 7WffeMs8sQuzdYFwngxUZoY= =9BjM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Why did I suggest /usr/lib/kde3 or /opt/kde3? (Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 17 January 2002 00:54, Oliver Johns wrote: > On Fri Dec 14, 2001 Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > With kde3 my current (and yet truely tested) approach for file layout is > > pretty much everything under /usr/share/kde /usr/lib/kde > > (and /usr/lib/kde3 for the modules) /etc/kde. > > Any chance that Chris and Daniel will hold to that? I think my suggestion needs some clarification. What was the motivation for that? The reason is that Ivan's yet untested approach will not work well when users want to install KDE2 and KDE3 at the same time. In my approach, you can choose among KDE2 or KDE3 to your heart's content. Note that the only file conflicts will *not* happen among libraries, which is why you should install in a KDE prefix other than /usr. There are many files that conflict, from the ground up. And there is no easy solution except implementing my proposed approach. For keeping multiple versions of KDE, as agreed on by hackers on #kde (including the knows-it-all noatun developer Charles[*]), you need to install them to a specific location other than /usr. That simple. My suggestion clearly targets that. If we had only one major version of KDE at a time (which will never be the case), then there would be no need for such a change. When we have final KDE3 release, there will be a guess what: a development version which will bring the same problems over again. As of now, the decision primarily interests Chris. I ought to summarize my suggestion again: Make a /usr/lib/kde3 hierarchy. Under this hierarchy, move directories that do not belong there (according to the policy) to their appropriate locations, and symlink them in /usr/lib/kde3. /usr/lib/kde3/include -> /usr/include/kde3 /usr/lib/kde3/share -> /usr/share/kde3 (install manual pages to their correct locations) Add /usr/lib/kde3 to /etc/ld.so.conf That's all that is needed! Make all this with a very simple build script, and include that script in a generic debian kde package as before. Also, the proposed change does not affect any KDE2 user in anyway as it stands, so please don't be confused by what's being discussed. Regards, [*] I mean it, Charles is one guy who has wisdom. - -- 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 iD8DBQE8RgvGfAeuFodNU5wRAulRAJ9FLe9V1pfoa/f4KuYkRdWW9wch7ACfaj4d 2dm/w9uaWOzTYrZ35KrtjKo= =jNnb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 17 January 2002 00:54, Oliver Johns wrote: > On Fri Dec 14, 2001 Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > With kde3 my current (and yet truely tested) approach for file layout is > > pretty much everything under /usr/share/kde /usr/lib/kde > > (and /usr/lib/kde3 for the modules) /etc/kde. > Hmm. I haven't read that very carefully. After of course after the initial kde3 packages, it was seen that you had to move /usr/share/ cruft to /usr/share/kde/ similar to what I had suggested a loong time ago. Actually Ivan's suggestion is not too different from what I propose, but mine is more improved. There is something that I omitted; I will write it later. 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 iD8DBQE8RhgffAeuFodNU5wRArtjAKCAhhBT2FkqifrXkZ+utQOnaboEIwCfcRRD H2I2iPXKHEVW6hb1avw4cT0= =r1Ry -END PGP SIGNATURE-
What are Chris and Daniel actually going to do now?
On Fri Dec 14, 2001 Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > With kde3 my current (and yet truely tested) approach for file layout is > pretty much everything under /usr/share/kde /usr/lib/kde > (and /usr/lib/kde3 for the modules) /etc/kde. Any chance that Chris and Daniel will hold to that? -- Oliver Johns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> San Francisco, California USA GPG KeyID=A2ACE692 GPG Fingerprint=BE4A C1B8 EB0D 8FD9 737D CE4A 1E56 BF9B A2AC E692
