From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20495 invoked by uid 1002); 28 Jan 2003 16:49:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 16988 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2003 16:49:33 -0000 From: Dylan Carlson Reply-To: absinthe@pobox.com To: sh@kde-coder.de, gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:43:13 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200301280042.44212.Jan.Winhuysen@TU-Clausthal.de> <200301280534.25302.absinthe@pobox.com> <200301281627.16299.sh@kde-coder.de> In-Reply-To: <200301281627.16299.sh@kde-coder.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200301281143.14104.absinthe@pobox.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Split KDE packages? X-Archives-Salt: 91f48300-2329-48b0-a5e5-75d36e47e175 X-Archives-Hash: a18656daf6f9d917ad7ef1f2abeadc46 On Tuesday 28 January 2003 10:27 am, Stephan Hermann wrote: > > And that's the problem. > No user knows, what belongs to KDE as enviroment and what does not > belong to KDE e.g. kportage. Not true. Anything in the base KDE distribution is in /portage/kde-base/. > So, we're talking about developer business and not "end-customer" > business. > I'm a developer and (to use your word) "end-customer". I want more control over how things gets built. This speaks to the core of what Gentoo is supposed to provide. Control over what gets built and what doesn't, and how. That's one of the core goals of Gentoo. Also, I believe that this request speaks more to the hearts of developers than it does end-users. End-users don't really care as long as it fits on their hard drive, because they don't know any better. > Yes, it burns cpu power and time, but if you want bleeding edge, so > please, leave the configure/make/make install method as is. > Your opinion is noted, but I (and others) disagree. > > And when those "patch-releases" (kde 3.0.1/3.0.2 etc.) will come out, > not only one application is patched. > All other patches are not directly for the public. Not true. If something is critically broken, there is patch for a good reason. If there hasn't been a KDE release, it just means that the those patches (and others) are waiting to go through their QA for a release. > > You can't do it normally. If you do it, you have to split up the source > packages. > Again, that is not true. It's handled by makefiles. There is no need to split up the source packages. > Ahhhh....so, you want to have kdenetwork-kmail-3.1-patchlvl-99 2 > rc7.ebuild and kdenetwork-knode-patchlvl-98 1 rc5.ebuild ? > How would you handle all this patch things? The KDE stuff is handled by an eclass where this is already handled and if desired can be further refined. > > easier then to write new ebuilds for kde patch level 666 rc9 > Disagree. Writing the initial ebuilds is the difficult part. Maintaining them is easy. > > if you don't have time to download and to recompile, use redhat, suse, > mandrake,debian. > That's a little arrogant, imo. Right back at you -- if you don't have an open mind about how these binaries get built, maybe you should be using another system. The point of a system like Gentoo is to put more control in the hands of the users by providing a system like Portage. If we were not attempting to make this as flexible and granular as possible, I believe it would be suitable for some other system. But this is Gentoo, this is why most of us are here. We're not here merely to keep our machines busy compiling code. Cheers, Dylan Carlson [absinthe@pobox.com] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list