[gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

Hi everyone,

I'm working on the (final) depend.eclass version selection routine. I should 
finish it today and then I'll move on to writing ebuilds for kde3-beta1 and 
later kde3 cvs[up], which I'll put on some site for people like e.g. woodchip 
(who is working on this too from some angle) et al to use/test. So when we 
come to kde3 final we'll have long-used, well-tested ebuilds right away :-)

A few Qs:

1. If the FHS say only binary stuff goes in /opt, where would I put several 
KDEs-in-testing? /usr/kde-$ver? 

2. Where should I put these ebuilds (as patches to portage)? I curently have 
no personal site; I could use sourceforge or something similar, but a 
collection of packages for a distribution doesn't really seem to fit 
sourceforge's purposes (marginally). Maybe we should just put them on 
gentoo.org somewhere? After all, they won't be at all large. Or just do cvs 
branches :-) 

Comments, suggestions?

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 06:57:42PM +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm working on the (final) depend.eclass version selection routine. I should 
> finish it today and then I'll move on to writing ebuilds for kde3-beta1 and 
> later kde3 cvs[up], which I'll put on some site for people like e.g. woodchip 
> (who is working on this too from some angle) et al to use/test. So when we 
> come to kde3 final we'll have long-used, well-tested ebuilds right away :-)
> 
> A few Qs:
> 
> 1. If the FHS say only binary stuff goes in /opt, where would I put several 
> KDEs-in-testing? /usr/kde-$ver? 

Whatever makes sense; just don't use /opt.

> 2. Where should I put these ebuilds (as patches to portage)? I curently have 
> no personal site; I could use sourceforge or something similar, but a 
> collection of packages for a distribution doesn't really seem to fit 
> sourceforge's purposes (marginally). Maybe we should just put them on 
> gentoo.org somewhere? After all, they won't be at all large. Or just do cvs 
> branches :-) 

Can you just put them on Portage and add them to package.mask?

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

On Saturday 22 December 2001 19:28, you wrote:
> Can you just put them on Portage and add them to package.mask?
I could, and that'd be the most comfortable option (for me). But when I 
originally discussed this with Hallski (in kde3-alpha1 days) he decided I 
shouldn't do that. His reason was/is, that portage shouldn't become a testing 
ground for beta packages on the scale of KDE when a good stable version of 
the package already exists, not even masked. (Maybe he could explain more 
fully/correctly).

I hope this explains the situation.

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Guido Bakker]

Hi,

I run cvs with no problems at all. If the ebuild is called beta? Users should 
know that it can brake things. I would say go for it :)...

--
Guido

On Saturday 22 December 2001 19:28, you wrote:
> Can you just put them on Portage and add them to package.mask?

I could, and that'd be the most comfortable option (for me). But when I
originally discussed this with Hallski (in kde3-alpha1 days) he decided I
shouldn't do that. His reason was/is, that portage shouldn't become a testing
ground for beta packages on the scale of KDE when a good stable version of
the package already exists, not even masked. (Maybe he could explain more
fully/correctly).

I hope this explains the situation.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

On Saturday 22 December 2001 20:29, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I run cvs with no problems at all. If the ebuild is called beta? Users
> should know that it can brake things. I would say go for it :)...
I'd have said the same, but in this case it's Hallski's decision, as he is 
head of the Desktop team.

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1309 bytes --]

lör 2001-12-22 klockan 19.12 skrev Dan Armak:
> On Saturday 22 December 2001 20:29, you wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I run cvs with no problems at all. If the ebuild is called beta? Users
> > should know that it can brake things. I would say go for it :)...
> I'd have said the same, but in this case it's Hallski's decision, as he is 
> head of the Desktop team.

If everyone thinks we should put these kind of stuff in portage I'll
bend for the majority. 

My reasoning was that _if_ we have these kind of things in Portage it
might break stuff other than that particular package. And users will
install it no matter how many alpha/beta etc. tags you put on the
package name, be sure.

That means that users might come and ask, my foobar doesn't work, and we
developers can spend several hours trying to figure out what's wrong
until it's clear that he installed foo-beta which happends to break this
package.

That is why I'm against putting untested early-beta software in the
packagesystem. Because no matter how much unsupported they are, we will
always end up support it.

But as I said, if everyone else feels this is ok, just put it in.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal
 
-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

On Sunday 23 December 2001 15:44, you wrote:
> That is why I'm against putting untested early-beta software in the
> packagesystem. Because no matter how much unsupported they are, we will
> always end up support it.
Well, I don't think kde could break anything but kde apps. And I'm willing to 
support the beta ebuilds.

Of course I'd put up a 'don't use unless you know what you're doing' notice, 
and mask them thoroughly. And support would be probably slower/more sparse, 
but not necessarily so since I'll probably be using kde3 myself all the time 
before long, and I know some other people will do so too before the final 
release.

As for problems that are rooted in kde3 as such (not just beta trouble), the 
more input and testers the better - as long as they understand that it's not 
*supposed* to be stable. As I've said, better solve these now than when 
kde3-final comes out.

> But as I said, if everyone else feels this is ok, just put it in.
Everyone? Opinions?

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1867 bytes --]

sön 2001-12-23 klockan 15.07 skrev Dan Armak:
> On Sunday 23 December 2001 15:44, you wrote:
> > That is why I'm against putting untested early-beta software in the
> > packagesystem. Because no matter how much unsupported they are, we will
> > always end up support it.
> Well, I don't think kde could break anything but kde apps. And I'm willing to 
> support the beta ebuilds.

I wasn't talking about just KDE, but if we put KDE in I can't see why we
couldn't put all alpha-releases. And others might break things. So can
KDE3 if it installs over other files (like pilot-link installing over
glibc and stuff).

And what I'm talking about here is not that the actual code is beta
(since very much of what is in portage now is "beta"). I'm talking about
beta-releases (which are only meant for developers of KDE/GNOME/foo,
depending on what kind of packages it is).

> Of course I'd put up a 'don't use unless you know what you're doing' notice, 
> and mask them thoroughly. And support would be probably slower/more sparse, 
> but not necessarily so since I'll probably be using kde3 myself all the time 
> before long, and I know some other people will do so too before the final 
> release.

Yes probably, and that is what frightens me. 

> As for problems that are rooted in kde3 as such (not just beta trouble), the 
> more input and testers the better - as long as they understand that it's not 
> *supposed* to be stable. As I've said, better solve these now than when 
> kde3-final comes out.

Problems that come out of your ebuilds, yes, but really, if the tarballs
used had been tested before being made available in Portage the job of
finding errors in the ebuilds would be less.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 12:08:19AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> > Well, I don't think kde could break anything but kde apps. And I'm willing to 
> > support the beta ebuilds.
> 
> I wasn't talking about just KDE, but if we put KDE in I can't see why we
> couldn't put all alpha-releases. And others might break things. So can
> KDE3 if it installs over other files (like pilot-link installing over
> glibc and stuff).

If it helps (it may not), Portage supports the _beta suffix, so you can have;

kde-base-3.0_beta1.ebuild

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Geert Bevin]

Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> I wasn't talking about just KDE, but if we put KDE in I can't see why we
> couldn't put all alpha-releases. And others might break things. So can
> KDE3 if it installs over other files (like pilot-link installing over
> glibc and stuff).
> 
> And what I'm talking about here is not that the actual code is beta
> (since very much of what is in portage now is "beta"). I'm talking about
> beta-releases (which are only meant for developers of KDE/GNOME/foo,
> depending on what kind of packages it is).



Personally I'm not so hot either that these ebuilds would propagate to 
every regular user. However, using cvs for developers to make it easy to 
test the ebuilds is of course the best way to do so. Why not put them in 
gentoo-src in a dedicated ebuild-beta directory. That way, the best of 
both world are met. Another idea might be for rsync to filter out all 
masked ebuilds. However I don't know if this would be possible. Starting 
to branch the cvs into stable / development ebuilds seems a bit too much 
of a hassle currently. After the release of 1.0 this might however be 
the best way to proceed.


-- 
Geert Bevin
the Leaf sprl/bvba
"Use what you need"	Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
http://www.theleaf.be 
1030 Brussels
gbevin@theleaf.be 
Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1009 bytes --]

mån 2001-12-24 klockan 09.27 skrev Geert Bevin:
> Mikael Hallendal wrote:
>
> Personally I'm not so hot either that these ebuilds would propagate to 
> every regular user. However, using cvs for developers to make it easy to 
> test the ebuilds is of course the best way to do so. Why not put them in 
> gentoo-src in a dedicated ebuild-beta directory. That way, the best of 
> both world are met. Another idea might be for rsync to filter out all 
> masked ebuilds. However I don't know if this would be possible. Starting 
> to branch the cvs into stable / development ebuilds seems a bit too much 
> of a hassle currently. After the release of 1.0 this might however be 
> the best way to proceed.

This can be solved with CVS branches in gentoo-x86, using branches as
stable/unstable whatever, and let rsync (and anonymous cvs) only export
stable.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

On Tuesday 25 December 2001 03:12, you wrote:
> mån 2001-12-24 klockan 09.27 skrev Geert Bevin:
> > Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> >
> > Personally I'm not so hot either that these ebuilds would propagate to
> > every regular user. However, using cvs for developers to make it easy to
> > test the ebuilds is of course the best way to do so. Why not put them in
> > gentoo-src in a dedicated ebuild-beta directory. That way, the best of
> > both world are met. Another idea might be for rsync to filter out all
> > masked ebuilds. However I don't know if this would be possible. Starting
> > to branch the cvs into stable / development ebuilds seems a bit too much
> > of a hassle currently. After the release of 1.0 this might however be
> > the best way to proceed.
>
> This can be solved with CVS branches in gentoo-x86, using branches as
> stable/unstable whatever, and let rsync (and anonymous cvs) only export
> stable.
Well, I'd be glad to have cvs branches. It would certainly be the most 
comfortable solution. However as I see it it would probably need portage-side 
suport of at least multiple portage dirs. drobbins?

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 07:00:45AM +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
> > This can be solved with CVS branches in gentoo-x86, using branches as
> > stable/unstable whatever, and let rsync (and anonymous cvs) only export
> > stable.
> Well, I'd be glad to have cvs branches. It would certainly be the most 
> comfortable solution. However as I see it it would probably need portage-side 
> suport of at least multiple portage dirs. drobbins?

Just put them on cvs like normal, and tag them with the _beta suffix as
appropriate.  Mask them.  Problem solved.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1123 bytes --]

tis 2001-12-25 klockan 06.11 skrev Daniel Robbins:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 07:00:45AM +0200, Dan Armak wrote:
> > > This can be solved with CVS branches in gentoo-x86, using branches as
> > > stable/unstable whatever, and let rsync (and anonymous cvs) only export
> > > stable.
> > Well, I'd be glad to have cvs branches. It would certainly be the most 
> > comfortable solution. However as I see it it would probably need portage-side 
> > suport of at least multiple portage dirs. drobbins?
> 
> Just put them on cvs like normal, and tag them with the _beta suffix as
> appropriate.  Mask them.  Problem solved.

Well, it's very much unsolved. Because users don't care about masking
once they've learned how to get around it. As I said before _beta,
masking will only hold back some and tell that it's unstable. But we'll
end up supporting the stuff anyway.

This is just as the /incoming directory which many users started to use
even though they shouldn't.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:10:02PM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Well, it's very much unsolved. Because users don't care about masking
> once they've learned how to get around it. As I said before _beta,
> masking will only hold back some and tell that it's unstable. But we'll
> end up supporting the stuff anyway.

This is easily solved.  Just put a very clear comment in package.mask around
the mask entries stating in no unclear terms that *these packages are not yet
supported*, are *for developers only*, and *are very unstable*.  *use at your
own risk*, *not a good idea* and *you'll regret it later* should do the trick!
:)

> This is just as the /incoming directory which many users started to use
> even though they shouldn't.

How so?

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1757 bytes --]

tis 2001-12-25 klockan 16.49 skrev Daniel Robbins:
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:10:02PM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> > Well, it's very much unsolved. Because users don't care about masking
> > once they've learned how to get around it. As I said before _beta,
> > masking will only hold back some and tell that it's unstable. But we'll
> > end up supporting the stuff anyway.
> 
> This is easily solved.  Just put a very clear comment in package.mask around
> the mask entries stating in no unclear terms that *these packages are not yet
> supported*, are *for developers only*, and *are very unstable*.  *use at your
> own risk*, *not a good idea* and *you'll regret it later* should do the trick!
> :)
> 
> > This is just as the /incoming directory which many users started to use
> > even though they shouldn't.
> 
> How so?

The ebuilds in /incoming are untested and should not be used by users.
But since it's available to users, users use it anyway.

I think it all comes down to what kind of distribution we want to
create. If we want to make a distribution for those that create it and
use-at-own-risk for everyone else (this is all fine by me) we should
clearly state this (to users and developers).

If we want to create a distributions for everyone we have to go around
to make users don't hurt themeselfs. Since users _will_ do bad things to
there own systems if they are able to. And if so, masking and comments
are not enough, imho. 

CVS branches solves these problems (and we have to start using branches
sooner or later anyway, preferable when we release 1.0). 

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Geert Bevin]

> The ebuilds in /incoming are untested and should not be used by users.
> But since it's available to users, users use it anyway.
> 
> I think it all comes down to what kind of distribution we want to
> create. If we want to make a distribution for those that create it and
> use-at-own-risk for everyone else (this is all fine by me) we should
> clearly state this (to users and developers).


Personally I think that since we're steering towards v1.0, stability and 
clarity for the regular user should be an important issue. People tend 
to ignore warnings or disclaimers and go ahead anyway. Then when it 
doesn't work they either get a bad image of the distribution or they ask 
questions on the mailinglist or irc channel about the stuff that was 
essentially unsupported, taking up valuable developer's time and 
patience. I really think that they shouldn't get the opportunity to get 
access to those ebuilds unless it's clearly distributed seperately as a 
complete alpha (or beta) branch. Just my idea on the topic.

> If we want to create a distributions for everyone we have to go around
> to make users don't hurt themeselfs. Since users _will_ do bad things to
> there own systems if they are able to. And if so, masking and comments
> are not enough, imho. 


I agree with that.

> CVS branches solves these problems (and we have to start using branches
> sooner or later anyway, preferable when we release 1.0). 
> 
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal



-- 
Geert Bevin
the Leaf sprl/bvba
"Use what you need"	Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
http://www.theleaf.be 
1030 Brussels
gbevin@theleaf.be 
Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 09:40:05PM +0100, Geert Bevin wrote:
> Personally I think that since we're steering towards v1.0, stability and 
> clarity for the regular user should be an important issue. People tend 
> to ignore warnings or disclaimers and go ahead anyway. Then when it 
> doesn't work they either get a bad image of the distribution or they ask 
> questions on the mailinglist or irc channel about the stuff that was 
> essentially unsupported, taking up valuable developer's time and 
> patience. I really think that they shouldn't get the opportunity to get 
> access to those ebuilds unless it's clearly distributed seperately as a 
> complete alpha (or beta) branch. Just my idea on the topic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on a default install of Gentoo Linux, can't
a user log in as root and type "rm -rf /" if they so choose?  I understand
your view but don't agree with it; an explicit (and very big with lots of
*'s in it) warning in the package.mask is sufficient.  And I'm calling
that my final answer, folks.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 903 bytes --]

ons 2001-12-26 klockan 02.47 skrev Daniel Robbins:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but on a default install of Gentoo Linux, can't
> a user log in as root and type "rm -rf /" if they so choose?  I understand
> your view but don't agree with it; an explicit (and very big with lots of
> *'s in it) warning in the package.mask is sufficient.  And I'm calling
> that my final answer, folks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Gentoo Linux is a community based
distribution, meaning all developers has a say in this matter.

Also, the "rm -rf /" example misses the point. The point is that if we
have lots of beta-stuff in Portage (available to the users) we'll end up
spending loads of hours supporting it (no matter how many signs of
"Unsupported" we write).

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 03:14:20AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong but Gentoo Linux is a community based
> distribution, meaning all developers has a say in this matter.

OK, I'll correct you :)  Gentoo Linux is a community-based distribution, but it
is not a democracy.  It's a benevolent dictatorship.  Does that mean that I go
ahead and ignore all my developers?  Of course not; developers have always had
a say, and I give tremendous leeway to my developers... most of the time.
Sometimes I need to chime in and resolve a dispute or exert my will over a
particular decision.  This was one of those situations, and I did.  And I do
not believe that my decision was outrageous, nor did I choose to withold an
explanation for my decision.  

Hallski, how many times in the past have I said "I'm giving Hallski the final
decision on this one"?  I hope you'll agree it's been quite a few times.  In
these times, the final decision has been given to you because I trust your
expertise.  You have been given authority over the desktop aspects of Gentoo
Linux, but branching CVS is something that affects more than just Desktop
developers.  You should not be surprised that, in this particular case, I
exerted my authority and made this decision.  It's certainly within my "job
description" to make this decision.  And not to be rude, but whether or not to
branch CVS is really not your decision.

> Also, the "rm -rf /" example misses the point. The point is that if we have
> lots of beta-stuff in Portage (available to the users) we'll end up spending
> loads of hours supporting it (no matter how many signs of "Unsupported" we
> write).

The "rm -rf /" example is exactly the point.  Inform the user, and let *them*
make an *educated* decision.  I trust the Gentoo Linux user base; we're not
designing a distribution for monkeys here.  Taking control away from users is
really not part of the Gentoo Linux philosophy.  

I think I should also point out that one or more of our "users" may decide to
install the beta packages and end up fixing some bugs for us.  Many of our
users are experts themselves, and I want them to be able to at least see, and
if they choose, play with the beta ebuilds.  If I were in their shoes, I would
not want to be denied this opportunity, but I *would* like to be warned about
any potential badness.  This is what we will do, and it's the right thing to
do.  Shirking away from open development is not a good solution.

If you don't want to support the one user who chooses to ignore this warning, I
won't have a problem with that.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2612 bytes --]

ons 2001-12-26 klockan 03.44 skrev Daniel Robbins:

> Hallski, how many times in the past have I said "I'm giving Hallski the final
> decision on this one"?  I hope you'll agree it's been quite a few times.  In
> these times, the final decision has been given to you because I trust your
> expertise.  You have been given authority over the desktop aspects of Gentoo
> Linux, but branching CVS is something that affects more than just Desktop
> developers.  You should not be surprised that, in this particular case, I
> exerted my authority and made this decision.  It's certainly within my "job
> description" to make this decision.  And not to be rude, but whether or not to
> branch CVS is really not your decision.

I've never claimed branching the CVS is my decision. I posted is as a
solution to this problem. Wether putting beta KDE packages in Portage
should be my descision (if I've not been incorrectly informed about my
role in Gentoo). Since in the end I'm responsible for desktop issues,
even though Dan is currently responsible for KDE stuff.

> > Also, the "rm -rf /" example misses the point. The point is that if we have
> > lots of beta-stuff in Portage (available to the users) we'll end up spending
> > loads of hours supporting it (no matter how many signs of "Unsupported" we
> > write).
> 
> The "rm -rf /" example is exactly the point.  Inform the user, and let *them*
> make an *educated* decision.  I trust the Gentoo Linux user base; we're not
> designing a distribution for monkeys here.  Taking control away from users is
> really not part of the Gentoo Linux philosophy.

I'm all for users being able to try out new stuff. And what I meant
about it's not the point is that if the user does "rm -rf /" he won't
come to us for support. If a user (after installing KDE3) notices bad
behaviour in various places it might take a very long time tracking it
back to KDE (thus spending lots of developer time).

Also, even _if_ users read the warnings and is willing to take the risk
it will end up taking lots of our time.

If we on the other hand say that we don't have much user support and
leave it at that it's all fine by me. But then this should be made
clear.

So, I'd say this particular issue is in the end my descission, wether or
not to branch the entire portage is _not_ my descision (alone), but I'd
say I should have a say in the matter. But that is out of the scoop for
this discussion.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 04:01:25AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> I've never claimed branching the CVS is my decision. I posted is as a
> solution to this problem. Wether putting beta KDE packages in Portage
> should be my descision (if I've not been incorrectly informed about my
> role in Gentoo). Since in the end I'm responsible for desktop issues,
> even though Dan is currently responsible for KDE stuff.

Beyond your authority as the Desktop Team Leader, there is an underlying need
for users *and* developers to be able to freely exchange ebuilds and work on
them together.  Both branching CVS and keeping them off CVS prevent this from
happening.  If you don't want KDE 3 beta on CVS, period, (because it's beta
software and buggy) then I support your decision because it makes sense to not
offer broken software to end users.  But at the same time, this needs to be
balanced with the fact that the KDE 3 beta ebuilds will end up being the base
for the KDE 3 final ebuilds.  

If you feel that the package.mask is insufficient, you can modify the
default-1.0_rc6/packages file directly.  It does the same thing but is less
likely to be tampered with.  Add:

<=kde-base/kde-2.3

etc.  Then I can create a "dev-1.0_rc6" profile for danarmak and verwilst to
use that don't have these lines included.  We really have the functionality
built-in to Portage to handle this.

> So, I'd say this particular issue is in the end my descission, wether or
> not to branch the entire portage is _not_ my descision (alone), but I'd
> say I should have a say in the matter. But that is out of the scoop for
> this discussion.

Just remember that we have to somehow work towards a *stable* KDE3 release.  I
think having a separate system profile for KDE3 development might be a good
compromise.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2149 bytes --]

ons 2001-12-26 klockan 04.33 skrev Daniel Robbins:

> Just remember that we have to somehow work towards a *stable* KDE3 release.  I
> think having a separate system profile for KDE3 development might be a good
> compromise.

Ok, looks like you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about beta
_ebuilds_. I'm talking about beta packages (like for instance, GNOME
produces lots of beta releases of GNOME2. These packages are _only_
supposed for GNOME developers). From my discussion with Dan about this
issue, the KDE3 betas we are discussing here are for KDE developers.

Beta ebuilds are a totally different issue. In that case I think masking
them is the correct way to go. But if we start packaging stuff that we
know are very unstable packages we'll end up spending lots of time on
doing:

*) Patches for the installations (since it's not finished) which is 
   obsoleted when the stable version comes out.

*) Debugging KDE/foobar source which has nothing to do with Gentoo.

*) Having to spend lots of time trying to figure out if it's our ebuilds
   or the released tarballs that is flaky.

And trust me, we will end up doing all of the above, no matter how many
warning signs we put up. Because most people takes a look on them and
thinks it's ok. Then they will mail the mailinglist or discuss on IRC
never the less and the developers will end up spending lots of time on
these things that is none of Gentoo's concern.

So what I'm saying is that _we_ shouldn't work towards a stable KDE3
release, the KDE release team should. Once it's out we should work
towards stable packages of that software.

This is why I suggested to Dan that if he wants to play around with KDE3
he should make ebuilds and distribute them from himself rather than in
the portage. That way it will be clear that users wanting to discuss
KDE3/those ebuilds should turn to him rather than any of the other
developers.

This is the way I plan to distribute ebuilds for Gtk+/GNOME pre-2.0.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 05:10:11AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> Ok, looks like you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about beta
> _ebuilds_. I'm talking about beta packages (like for instance, GNOME
> produces lots of beta releases of GNOME2. These packages are _only_
> supposed for GNOME developers). From my discussion with Dan about this
> issue, the KDE3 betas we are discussing here are for KDE developers.

OK; if Dan is just adding KDE3 beta stuff just to have it around, it's a waste
of time.  If he needs it around to get ready for KDE3 himself, then I see some
merit.  I think Dan may just be getting a little overzealous and wanting to add
it just because it's there.  I don't anticipate that KDE3 will be particularly
hard to build.

So, I finally agree with you :)  Dan, I think it's bad policy to add KDE3 beta
ebuilds just for the sake of having them.  I would only add them if we actually
have requests from KDE developers who happen to use Gentoo Linux.  But I
imagine that any red-blooded KDE developers would be grabbing their stuff from
CVS anyway.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

On Wednesday 26 December 2001 07:43, you wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 05:10:11AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> > Ok, looks like you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about beta
> > _ebuilds_. I'm talking about beta packages (like for instance, GNOME
> > produces lots of beta releases of GNOME2. These packages are _only_
> > supposed for GNOME developers). From my discussion with Dan about this
> > issue, the KDE3 betas we are discussing here are for KDE developers.
Well, actually they're for developers and beta-testers. And quite a lot of 
people are in that second category - for example back in the pre-KDE-2.0 days 
I used suse. And in suse 7.0 they included both the latest stable kde 1.x, 
and the latest 2.0 beta. And they regularly released rpms on their update 
website for the latest kde 2.0 betas/rcs, and as I remember it worked out OK 
- suse forums weren't swamped with problems caused by beta packages; most 
users correctly directed those to kde. 

>
> OK; if Dan is just adding KDE3 beta stuff just to have it around, it's a
> waste of time.  If he needs it around to get ready for KDE3 himself, then I
> see some merit.  I think Dan may just be getting a little overzealous and
> wanting to add it just because it's there.
Well, as for myself, I'm working on kde3 ebuilds because I really need the 
new Hebrew support. Right now I'm forced to use msoffice under vmware with 
kde 2.x. As soon as kde3 is stable enough, and it should be by now, I'll 
switch to using it for my day-to-day work. And of course, being the kde 
packager, I naturally want to create ebuilds and share them.

> I don't anticipate that KDE3
> will be particularly hard to build.
It's not - it's just as easy as kde2. The only thing that's difficult is the 
kde2/3 coexistence with its various demands.

>
> So, I finally agree with you :)  Dan, I think it's bad policy to add KDE3
> beta ebuilds just for the sake of having them.  I would only add them if we
> actually have requests from KDE developers who happen to use Gentoo Linux. 
> But I imagine that any red-blooded KDE developers would be grabbing their
> stuff from CVS anyway.
Well, I understand that. And I started this thread asking for advice on where 
to put my ebuilds (outside Gentoo) for those who do want to use them and/or 
help me work on them. That question remained unanswered btw.

Of course it'd have been more comfortable for me to have them in cvs & 
masked, but I understand Hallski's concerns and I'm willing to go along with 
his decision, even if I don't agree.

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1063 bytes --]

ons 2001-12-26 klockan 07.39 skrev Dan Armak:

> Well, I understand that. And I started this thread asking for advice on where 
> to put my ebuilds (outside Gentoo) for those who do want to use them and/or 
> help me work on them. That question remained unanswered btw.

What about developers have there own pages at www.gentoo.org?

Either

www.gentoo.org/~hallski

or

people.gentoo.org/hallski

or something along that?

Drobbins, what do you think?

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

 
> Of course it'd have been more comfortable for me to have them in cvs & 
> masked, but I understand Hallski's concerns and I'm willing to go along with 
> his decision, even if I don't agree.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Dan Armak
> Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
> Matan, Israel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 
-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Joshua Pierre]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 07:51:14AM +0100 or thereabouts, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> ons 2001-12-26 klockan 07.39 skrev Dan Armak:
> > Well, I understand that. And I started this thread asking for advice on where 
> > to put my ebuilds (outside Gentoo) for those who do want to use them and/or 
> > help me work on them. That question remained unanswered btw.
> 
> What about developers have there own pages at www.gentoo.org?
> 
> people.gentoo.org/hallski

This sounds like a great idea. This indicates to users that the people posting the ebuilds have some gentoo-clue so the ebuilds themselves are quite reputable.

-- 
Joshua Pierre
Developer & Release Technician
Themes.Org -- Open Source Interface Enhancement

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Damon M. Conway]

 Dan Armak wrote:
>Well, I understand that. And I started this thread asking for advice on where 
>to put my ebuilds (outside Gentoo) for those who do want to use them and/or 
>help me work on them. That question remained unanswered btw.

Put them in your homedir on cvs.gentoo.org.  www.gentoo.org/~danarmak will
work.

kabau

--
"UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
 would also stop you from doing clever things."  --Doug Gwyn

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Joshua Pierre]

Just quickly wanted to add something to this.

How about 'blocking' things such as incoming + beta ebuilds in rsync if MAINTAINER="no" in /etc/make.conf.

Just a quick idea, possibly a stupid one :-)

-- 
Joshua Pierre
Developer & Release Technician
Themes.Org -- Open Source Interface Enhancement

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 09:19:43PM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> If we want to create a distributions for everyone we have to go around
> to make users don't hurt themeselfs. Since users _will_ do bad things to
> there own systems if they are able to. And if so, masking and comments
> are not enough, imho. 

As I pointed out in my reply to Geert, Linux doesn't have much red tape.
There's nothing stopping root from typing "rm -rf /", so I think that a
very clear and explicitly spooky warning in package.mask is appropriate.
Yes, this is sufficient.  Anyone who can't be trusted to read a clear
warning in package.mask and respect it either shouldn't have root access,
or should be trusted to deal with any potential badness that may happen.

I think the best motto is "inform the user, and then trust them to make the
right decision."  Will all users thus informed make the right decision?  No.
But the vast majority will.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Guido Bakker]

That's why kde should install in its own directory... It's too big, just like 
X11R6...

--
Guido

sön 2001-12-23 klockan 15.07 skrev Dan Armak:
> On Sunday 23 December 2001 15:44, you wrote:
> > That is why I'm against putting untested early-beta software in the
> > packagesystem. Because no matter how much unsupported they are, we

will

> > always end up support it.
>
> Well, I don't think kde could break anything but kde apps. And I'm

willing to

> support the beta ebuilds.

I wasn't talking about just KDE, but if we put KDE in I can't see why we
couldn't put all alpha-releases. And others might break things. So can
KDE3 if it installs over other files (like pilot-link installing over
glibc and stuff).

And what I'm talking about here is not that the actual code is beta
(since very much of what is in portage now is "beta"). I'm talking about
beta-releases (which are only meant for developers of KDE/GNOME/foo,
depending on what kind of packages it is).

> Of course I'd put up a 'don't use unless you know what you're doing'

notice,

> and mask them thoroughly. And support would be probably slower/more

sparse,

> but not necessarily so since I'll probably be using kde3 myself all

the time

> before long, and I know some other people will do so too before the

final

> release.

Yes probably, and that is what frightens me.

> As for problems that are rooted in kde3 as such (not just beta

trouble), the

> more input and testers the better - as long as they understand that

it's not

> *supposed* to be stable. As I've said, better solve these now than

when

> kde3-final comes out.

Problems that come out of your ebuilds, yes, but really, if the tarballs
used had been tested before being made available in Portage the job of
finding errors in the ebuilds would be less.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Sebastian Werner]

Am 24.12.2001 10:59:02, schrieb Guido Bakker <guidob@gentoo.org>:

>
>That's why kde should install in its own directory... It's too big, just like 
>X11R6...

Yes, I agree. I would like to see kde in /opt/kde-${ver} or /usr/kde-${ver} like xfree.
The most libs that kde-use are kde-specific and will never have a function in other applications.
It's much easierer to manage multiple kde-version in full different trees...
and the system now to manually compile packages with:
KDEDIR=/usr/lib/kde-libs-${ver} ./configure --prefix=/usr
i very very ugly. Some packages of kde-apps search header files in /usr
not in $KDEDIR and then fail. I have created while do this with many apps some 
symlinks. But this is against the multi-version strategy

Regards

Sebastian Werner


>
>--
>Guido
>
>sön 2001-12-23 klockan 15.07 skrev Dan Armak:
>> On Sunday 23 December 2001 15:44, you wrote:
>> > That is why I'm against putting untested early-beta software in the
>> > packagesystem. Because no matter how much unsupported they are, we
>
>will
>
>> > always end up support it.
>>
>> Well, I don't think kde could break anything but kde apps. And I'm
>
>willing to
>
>> support the beta ebuilds.
>
>I wasn't talking about just KDE, but if we put KDE in I can't see why we
>couldn't put all alpha-releases. And others might break things. So can
>KDE3 if it installs over other files (like pilot-link installing over
>glibc and stuff).
>
>And what I'm talking about here is not that the actual code is beta
>(since very much of what is in portage now is "beta"). I'm talking about
>beta-releases (which are only meant for developers of KDE/GNOME/foo,
>depending on what kind of packages it is).
>
>> Of course I'd put up a 'don't use unless you know what you're doing'
>
>notice,
>
>> and mask them thoroughly. And support would be probably slower/more
>
>sparse,
>
>> but not necessarily so since I'll probably be using kde3 myself all
>
>the time
>
>> before long, and I know some other people will do so too before the
>
>final
>
>> release.
>
>Yes probably, and that is what frightens me.
>
>> As for problems that are rooted in kde3 as such (not just beta
>
>trouble), the
>
>> more input and testers the better - as long as they understand that
>
>it's not
>
>> *supposed* to be stable. As I've said, better solve these now than
>
>when
>
>> kde3-final comes out.
>
>Problems that come out of your ebuilds, yes, but really, if the tarballs
>used had been tested before being made available in Portage the job of
>finding errors in the ebuilds would be less.
>
>Regards,
>  Mikael Hallendal
>
>_______________________________________________
>gentoo-dev mailing list
>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
>http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

On Monday 24 December 2001 14:11, you wrote:
> Am 24.12.2001 10:59:02, schrieb Guido Bakker <guidob@gentoo.org>:
> >That's why kde should install in its own directory... It's too big, just
> > like X11R6...
>
> Yes, I agree. I would like to see kde in /opt/kde-${ver} or /usr/kde-${ver}
> like xfree. The most libs that kde-use are kde-specific and will never have
> a function in other applications. It's much easierer to manage multiple
> kde-version in full different trees...
I agree. But see the separate subthread on this (my reply to Drobbins' orig 
reply in this thread.)

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1059 bytes --]

mån 2001-12-24 klockan 13.11 skrev Sebastian Werner:
> Am 24.12.2001 10:59:02, schrieb Guido Bakker <guidob@gentoo.org>:
> 
> >
> >That's why kde should install in its own directory... It's too big, just like 
> >X11R6...
> 
> Yes, I agree. I would like to see kde in /opt/kde-${ver} or /usr/kde-${ver} like xfree.
> The most libs that kde-use are kde-specific and will never have a function in other applications.
> It's much easierer to manage multiple kde-version in full different trees...
> and the system now to manually compile packages with:

Hi!

This has already been decided (it was in /opt/kde before, just as gnome
in /opt/gnome). We have moved it to /usr since that is what was decided
upon a few month ago. It will not be moved again, and it doesn't solve
this issue so it should not be part of this discussion.

If someone is interested in this issue, please read the mail archive.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

On Saturday 22 December 2001 19:28, you wrote:
> > 1. If the FHS say only binary stuff goes in /opt, where would I put
> > several KDEs-in-testing? /usr/kde-$ver?
>
> Whatever makes sense; just don't use /opt.
On that subject, I'd like to raise once more the issue of KDE placing. Now is 
the last time we can easily change it, before doing kde3 ebuilds. I still 
think there should be support for multiple KDEs, which would live in e.g. 
/usr/kde-$ver each. Juggling paths would be a lot easier.

The way things work right now - one big kde in /usr - there are the following 
problems:
- Many users are bound to put other KDEs in other lpaces, with or without 
ebuilds. It'd be better for us to do it for them.
- Some apps don't like living separately from their kdelibs (noatun, kdm, 
mosfet's widgets...)
- A KDE dev called us "redhattish" :-(

I don't know how FHS-compatible that is (i.e. /usr/kde-$ver), beyond not 
putting kde in /opt. But I'd really like it to be that way - it would 
certainly make life easier.

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

To repeat and extend what I said:

On Sunday 23 December 2001 16:13, you wrote:
> > > 1. If the FHS say only binary stuff goes in /opt, where would I put
> > > several KDEs-in-testing? /usr/kde-$ver?
> >
> > Whatever makes sense; just don't use /opt.

On that subject, I'd like to raise once more the issue of KDE placing. Now
is the last time we can easily change it, before doing kde3 ebuilds. I
still think there should be support for multiple KDEs, which would live in
e.g. /usr/kde-$ver each. Juggling paths would be a lot easier.

The way things work right now - one big kde in /usr, many kdelibs in 
/usr/lib/kdelibs-$ver - there are the following problems, which will 
disappear if we place all KDEs (incl. kdelibs) in /usr/kde-$ver and put each 
app in the dir of the kdelibs to which it links:

- Many users will want multiple KDEs, with or without ebuilds that support 
it. It'd be better for us to do it for them, so that things are unified.

- Some apps don't like living separately from their kdelibs. In particular, 
noatun doesn't work at all (and apparently is unfixable save by patching the 
code), mosfet's liquid widgets require a makefile patch (applied), and kdm 
can't find the user icons (one possible solution is to manually move the 
icons in src_install). Other problems will likely arise.

- With one kde in /usr, it can be (from expirience) very complicated to 
startup a kde that lives elsewhere, since /usr always commes first in the 
paths.

- eclasses (and kdelibs & kdebase ebuilds) are becoming more and more complex 
and tangled to support all this.

I don't know how FHS-compatible that is (i.e. /usr/kde-$ver), beyond not
putting kde in /opt. But I'd really like it to be that way - it would 
certainly make everybody's life easier.

Now, I unfortunately missed the orig. kde->/usr thread back when it was 
discussed. Apparently it was mostly on IRC and not on the mailing lists so 
the only reason for having kde in /usr I really know is the FHS. There may be 
other & better reasons.

Even if we decide to hav only 1 kde, it will still be a lot better no to ahve 
in /kde. If we have /usr/kde-$ver dirs, each of which will contain a 
kdelibs-$ver and all apps linked against it, and kde base will live in one of 
those, it'll be a lot better than it is now. Again, because the kde that 
lives in /usr has execution priority over any others.

If we make kde live in /usr, -- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Dan Armak]

To repeat and extend what I said:

On Sunday 23 December 2001 16:13, you wrote:
> > > 1. If the FHS say only binary stuff goes in /opt, where would I put
> > > several KDEs-in-testing? /usr/kde-$ver?
> >
> > Whatever makes sense; just don't use /opt.

On that subject, I'd like to raise once more the issue of KDE placing. Now
is the last time we can easily change it, before doing kde3 ebuilds. I
still think there should be support for multiple KDEs, which would live in
e.g. /usr/kde-$ver each. Juggling paths would be a lot easier.

The way things work right now - one big kde in /usr, many kdelibs in 
/usr/lib/kdelibs-$ver - there are the following problems, which will 
disappear if we place all KDEs (incl. kdelibs) in /usr/kde-$ver and put each 
app in the dir of the kdelibs to which it links:

- Many users will want multiple KDEs, with or without ebuilds that support 
it. It'd be better for us to do it for them, so that things are unified.

- Some apps don't like living separately from their kdelibs. In particular, 
noatun doesn't work at all (and apparently is unfixable save by patching the 
code or moving lots of files around), mosfet's liquid widgets require a 
makefile patch (applied), and kdm can't find the user icons (one possible 
solution is to manually move the icons in src_install). Other problems will 
likely arise.

- With one kde in /usr, it can be (from expirience) very complicated to 
startup a kde that lives elsewhere, since /usr always commes first in the 
paths.

- eclasses (and kdelibs & kdebase ebuilds) are becoming more and more complex 
and tangled to support all this.

I don't know how FHS-compatible that is (i.e. /usr/kde-$ver), beyond not
putting kde in /opt. But I'd really like it to be that way - it would 
certainly make everybody's life easier.

Now, I unfortunately missed the orig. kde->/usr thread back when it was 
discussed. Apparently it was mostly on IRC and not on the mailing lists so 
the only reason for having kde in /usr I really know is the FHS. There may be 
other & better reasons.

Even if we decide to hav only 1 kde, it will still be a lot better no to ahve 
in /kde. If we have /usr/kde-$ver dirs, each of which will contain a 
kdelibs-$ver and all apps linked against it, and kde base will live in one of 
those, it'll be a lot better than it is now. Again, because the kde that 
lives in /usr has execution priority over any others.

What all this cimes to is that if we make kde live in /usr, we won't be able 
to support multiple kdes, and it will be difficult for users to set up 
mltiple kdes on their own.

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Bart Verwilst]

Hello!

My mail server is back online, so here i am again, i hope i didn't
miss too much of all this though :o(
One of the main reasons that i asked on IRC if we could have our
crew.gentoo.org/verwilst or people.gentoo.org/verwilst dirs, is for
stuff like this... The ebuilds that would be posted on each dev's 
'personal' site will generally be of much better quality then loose
ebuilds found anywhere else... Having those 'pre-portage' ebuilds helps 
us refine and test the ebuilds without making some user messing up his
system if he/she decides to ignore all the warnings and disclaimers..
For the KDE3 ebuilds, if danarmak and me use them before KDE3 final is
released, we'll have a rock-solid eclass implementation of the multi-.
KDE's and qt's... ( And ofcourse our bugreports to KDE will help
producing a better KDE 3 release, but that's another story ;o)
But gentoo-users should have the option of using stable ebuilds for
their alpha/beta software, or they'll make their own ebuilds, and break
maybe even more on their system :)

Just my 2 Eurocents

-- 
Bart Verwilst
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Gent, Belgium

Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:46:48PM +0100, Bart Verwilst wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> My mail server is back online, so here i am again, i hope i didn't
> miss too much of all this though :o(
> One of the main reasons that i asked on IRC if we could have our
> crew.gentoo.org/verwilst or people.gentoo.org/verwilst dirs, is for
> stuff like this... The ebuilds that would be posted on each dev's 
> 'personal' site will generally be of much better quality then loose
> ebuilds found anywhere else... Having those 'pre-portage' ebuilds helps 
> us refine and test the ebuilds without making some user messing up his
> system if he/she decides to ignore all the warnings and disclaimers..
> For the KDE3 ebuilds, if danarmak and me use them before KDE3 final is
> released, we'll have a rock-solid eclass implementation of the multi-.
> KDE's and qt's... ( And ofcourse our bugreports to KDE will help
> producing a better KDE 3 release, but that's another story ;o)
> But gentoo-users should have the option of using stable ebuilds for
> their alpha/beta software, or they'll make their own ebuilds, and break
> maybe even more on their system :)

You can already set up http://cvs.gentoo.org/~verwilst using a public_html
dir, if you like.  You just need to make it possible for anyone to rx your
homedir and your public_html directory.

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.