[gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

I'll probably need the asbestos drawers here shortly:

I've burned up several hours here with a grindingly slow compile of
kde. It is an older machine ( a few years) but is a P4 2Ghz and 500MB
ram. Is there an alternative to this?  I mean aside from using a
lighter, faster compiling, X setup.

I've been away from Fedora now for about a year I guess.  I left
Fedora and redhat after nearly 10yrs because the updates had gotten to
where it was every few mnths a full reinstall. I liked gentoo because
one can update cleanly without a full reinstall, but now I'm losing
what seems even more time with really slow compilations

Just on the face of it, it seems somewhat unreasonable with modern
software and powerfull computers, to need to spend this amount of time
just to get working software running.

I seem to recall a kde install being a matter that consumed something
like 1/2 hr on Fedora.  Must be that those packages are already
compiled?

Is that an option for us?

Is there some burning important reason why we need to throw away hours
and hours compiling kde?  Wouldn't a binary distribution of kde serve
as well in most ways?


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Jeff]

On Friday 09 December 2005 16:55, Harry Putnam wrote:

Check out Kubuntu dude. It's probably right up your alley. This is *not* an 
anti-Gentoo email. I 100% love Gentoo, and will continue to use it!

(Puts asbestos suit back in the drawer...)

> I'll probably need the asbestos drawers here shortly:
>
> I've burned up several hours here with a grindingly slow compile of
> kde. It is an older machine ( a few years) but is a P4 2Ghz and 500MB
> ram. Is there an alternative to this?  I mean aside from using a
> lighter, faster compiling, X setup.
>
> I've been away from Fedora now for about a year I guess.  I left
> Fedora and redhat after nearly 10yrs because the updates had gotten to
> where it was every few mnths a full reinstall. I liked gentoo because
> one can update cleanly without a full reinstall, but now I'm losing
> what seems even more time with really slow compilations
>
> Just on the face of it, it seems somewhat unreasonable with modern
> software and powerfull computers, to need to spend this amount of time
> just to get working software running.
>
> I seem to recall a kde install being a matter that consumed something
> like 1/2 hr on Fedora.  Must be that those packages are already
> compiled?
>
> Is that an option for us?
>
> Is there some burning important reason why we need to throw away hours
> and hours compiling kde?  Wouldn't a binary distribution of kde serve
> as well in most ways?

-- 
Han Solo:
	Oh! I thought they smelled bad on the *outside*!
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Tom Smith]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2169 bytes --]

Gentoo is a source-based distribution. This means that the software you receive comes in the form of source code. It's up to you to install (which includes compiling) the software with your specific preferences--this is what makes Gentoo what it is.
   
  If you like, you can add an emerge option that will build a binary file for you after it's done compiling. Doing this will allow you to install from binary on future or additional installs (if you're setting up more than one system).
   
  Installations can take a bit longer than the traditional binary-based distros. However, what you get is a refined Linux install that include only what you asked to be installed. There's no bloat about it--you control every part of the installation. You can also look at it another way: Going through the process of installing Gentoo will make you much more familiar with Linux than your average distro, if you're not already there. ;-D
   
  ~ Tom

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
  I'll probably need the asbestos drawers here shortly:

I've burned up several hours here with a grindingly slow compile of
kde. It is an older machine ( a few years) but is a P4 2Ghz and 500MB
ram. Is there an alternative to this? I mean aside from using a
lighter, faster compiling, X setup.

I've been away from Fedora now for about a year I guess. I left
Fedora and redhat after nearly 10yrs because the updates had gotten to
where it was every few mnths a full reinstall. I liked gentoo because
one can update cleanly without a full reinstall, but now I'm losing
what seems even more time with really slow compilations

Just on the face of it, it seems somewhat unreasonable with modern
software and powerfull computers, to need to spend this amount of time
just to get working software running.

I seem to recall a kde install being a matter that consumed something
like 1/2 hr on Fedora. Must be that those packages are already
compiled?

Is that an option for us?

Is there some burning important reason why we need to throw away hours
and hours compiling kde? Wouldn't a binary distribution of kde serve
as well in most ways?


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

  


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2508 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Gerhard Hoogterp]

On Friday 09 December 2005 23:20, Tom Smith wrote:
> Gentoo is a source-based distribution. This means that the software you
> receive comes in the form of source code. It's up to you to install (which
> includes compiling) the software with your specific preferences--this is
> what makes Gentoo what it is.

While this is true and one of the things that makes gentoo gentoo, there are 
already binary packages in portage. mozilla-bin, openoffice-bin. Mostly big 
packages which take some time to compile. So the idea of having a 
pre-compiled KDE isn't that alien to the world of gentoo..

Gerhard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Dale]

Gerhard Hoogterp wrote:

>While this is true and one of the things that makes gentoo gentoo, there are 
>already binary packages in portage. mozilla-bin, openoffice-bin. Mostly big 
>packages which take some time to compile. So the idea of having a 
>pre-compiled KDE isn't that alien to the world of gentoo..
>
>Gerhard
>  
>
And to think I still compile Open Office.  I even compiled it on a
400Mhz rig once.  Does anyone type in a command then take a nap?  I'm
disabled and do get some rest but I do wake up on occasion.  LOL

Gentoo is for those who want to compile from source.  Having the option
for binaries may be OK, but I doubt there is enough people going to use
it for all the effort.  Somebody has to still wait on it to finish
compiling.

Dale
:-)

-- 
To err is human, I'm most certainly human.

I have four rigs:

1:  Home built; Abit NF7 ver 2.0 w/ AMD 2500+ CPU, 1GB of ram and right now two 80GB hard drives.  
2:  Home built; Iwill KK266-R w/ AMD 1GHz CPU, 256MBs of ram and a 4GB drive.
3:  Home built; Gigabyte GA-71XE4 w/ 800MHz CPU, 128MBs of ram and a 2.5GB drive.
4:  Compaq Proliant 6000 Server w/ Quad 200MHz CPUs, 128MBs of ram and a 4.3GB SCSI drive.

All run Gentoo, all run folding. #1 is my desktop, 2, 3, and 4 are set up as servers.  

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Tom Smith]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1156 bytes --]

Well, I learn something new every day. I recalled reading in one of the Gentoo install docs that there was no way to download binary cuts of apps. Since there are /some/, KDE would probably be a good candidate for this... I agree. (I spent around two days anxiously waiting for KDE to compile.)
   
  Another option for the original poster is ccache. The initial install will still take some time but recompiles are said to proceed much faster.
   
  ~ Tom

Gerhard Hoogterp <gerhard@frappe.xs4all.nl> wrote:
  On Friday 09 December 2005 23:20, Tom Smith wrote:
> Gentoo is a source-based distribution. This means that the software you
> receive comes in the form of source code. It's up to you to install (which
> includes compiling) the software with your specific preferences--this is
> what makes Gentoo what it is.

While this is true and one of the things that makes gentoo gentoo, there are 
already binary packages in portage. mozilla-bin, openoffice-bin. Mostly big 
packages which take some time to compile. So the idea of having a 
pre-compiled KDE isn't that alien to the world of gentoo..

Gerhard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

  


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1435 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 586 bytes --]

On Saturday 10 December 2005 06:55, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I'll probably need the asbestos drawers here shortly:
>
> I've burned up several hours here with a grindingly slow compile of
> kde. It is an older machine ( a few years) but is a P4 2Ghz and 500MB
> ram. Is there an alternative to this?  I mean aside from using a
> lighter, faster compiling, X setup.

sure, why are you emerge-ing the full kde?

1) `emerge kdebase`
2) ???
3) Profit!

I'm on a 1.6ghz, and being a dev I compile more packages than most users ever 
will, have patience my son :P.

Chris White

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 23:35:43 +0100, Gerhard Hoogterp wrote:


> While this is true and one of the things that makes gentoo gentoo,
> there are already binary packages in portage. mozilla-bin,
> openoffice-bin. Mostly big packages which take some time to compile. So
> the idea of having a pre-compiled KDE isn't that alien to the world of
> gentoo..

Those binary packages are supplied by upstream, it's not the same as the
Gentoo devs providing compiled packages, although they do in the GRP
collections.

It's no big deal upgrading KDE anyway. Set PORTAGE_NICENESS to a suitable
value and you can keep using the computer while the new KDE is compiled
in the background. KDE is slotted, so installing 3.5 has no effect on the
3.4.x version you are currently using.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

She's fine, upstanding, and wonderful laying down.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Dale]

Chris White wrote:

>On Saturday 10 December 2005 06:55, Harry Putnam wrote:
>  
>
>>I'll probably need the asbestos drawers here shortly:
>>
>>I've burned up several hours here with a grindingly slow compile of
>>kde. It is an older machine ( a few years) but is a P4 2Ghz and 500MB
>>ram. Is there an alternative to this?  I mean aside from using a
>>lighter, faster compiling, X setup.
>>    
>>
>
>sure, why are you emerge-ing the full kde?
>
>1) `emerge kdebase`
>2) ???
>3) Profit!
>
>I'm on a 1.6ghz, and being a dev I compile more packages than most users ever 
>will, have patience my son :P.
>
>Chris White
>  
>
He should have been here when I installed Gentoo on a 200Mhz machine.

Dale
:-)

-- 
To err is human, I'm most certainly human.

I have four rigs:

1:  Home built; Abit NF7 ver 2.0 w/ AMD 2500+ CPU, 1GB of ram and right now two 80GB hard drives.  
2:  Home built; Iwill KK266-R w/ AMD 1GHz CPU, 256MBs of ram and a 4GB drive.
3:  Home built; Gigabyte GA-71XE4 w/ 800MHz CPU, 128MBs of ram and a 2.5GB drive.
4:  Compaq Proliant 6000 Server w/ Quad 200MHz CPUs, 128MBs of ram and a 4.3GB SCSI drive.

All run Gentoo, all run folding. #1 is my desktop, 2, 3, and 4 are set up as servers.  

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org> writes:

> will, have patience my son :P.

I usually prefer `grasshopper' and  you will need a heavy fake
oriental accent : )

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

Gerhard Hoogterp <gerhard@frappe.xs4all.nl> writes:

> While this is true and one of the things that makes gentoo gentoo, there are 
> already binary packages in portage. mozilla-bin, openoffice-bin. Mostly big 
> packages which take some time to compile. So the idea of having a 
> pre-compiled KDE isn't that alien to the world of gentoo..

Here here... glad to hear a few folks come down sensible on this.
It doesn't make me a bad person if I want a binary.... hehe.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 12/9/05, Dale <dalek@exceedtech.net> wrote:
> Chris White wrote:
>
> >On Saturday 10 December 2005 06:55, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'll probably need the asbestos drawers here shortly:
> >>
> >>I've burned up several hours here with a grindingly slow compile of
> >>kde. It is an older machine ( a few years) but is a P4 2Ghz and 500MB
> >>ram. Is there an alternative to this?  I mean aside from using a
> >>lighter, faster compiling, X setup.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >sure, why are you emerge-ing the full kde?
> >
> >1) `emerge kdebase`
> >2) ???
> >3) Profit!
> >
> >I'm on a 1.6ghz, and being a dev I compile more packages than most users
> ever
> >will, have patience my son :P.
> >
> >Chris White
> >
> >
> He should have been here when I installed Gentoo on a 200Mhz machine.

He should have watched me compiling Apache, PHP, MySQL and a lot of
other packages on my Pentium 100 with 48MB of RAM, what other distro
could turn that machine on a useful server other than Gentoo. Keep the
compile times, I kinda like them because I can always tell my
neighboor all that text going down must be watched so I can't go and
fix his computer.

>
> Dale
> :-)
>
> --
> To err is human, I'm most certainly human.
>
> I have four rigs:
>
> 1:  Home built; Abit NF7 ver 2.0 w/ AMD 2500+ CPU, 1GB of ram and right now
> two 80GB hard drives.
> 2:  Home built; Iwill KK266-R w/ AMD 1GHz CPU, 256MBs of ram and a 4GB
> drive.
> 3:  Home built; Gigabyte GA-71XE4 w/ 800MHz CPU, 128MBs of ram and a 2.5GB
> drive.
> 4:  Compaq Proliant 6000 Server w/ Quad 200MHz CPUs, 128MBs of ram and a
> 4.3GB SCSI drive.
>
> All run Gentoo, all run folding. #1 is my desktop, 2, 3, and 4 are set up as
> servers.
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org> writes:

> sure, why are you emerge-ing the full kde?
>
> 1) `emerge kdebase`
> 2) ???
> 3) Profit!

First off, this is an install from scratch.

While your comment sounds smart, this really only puts off doing it
later.  And the mindnumbing confusion of what parts of kde do what.
I'm not compiling kde-meta either, but I've got bit more than once
with missing stuff I later needed.

I just don't find it all that embracing flopping around in the many many
ways one can screw up with USE var,  KEYWORDS and the dozens of
combinations of there use..

Especially when I want and need to be doing something else.

I appreciate that gentoo is a source distro and even some of the
advantages of that, but I agree with the few other posters here that
say kde is a first rate candidate for a binary distribution.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

Daniel da Veiga <danieldaveiga@gmail.com> writes:

> He should have watched me compiling Apache, PHP, MySQL and a lot of
> other packages on my Pentium 100 with 48MB of RAM, what other distro

More `TOSS'... hehe

He should of watched me compile emacs on a vic 20....  Oh wait .. I'm
`he' and now that I think about it, I never did get the full X version
of emacs to run on that vic 20... hehe,

`The Old Sage Syndrome'

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:

> Those binary packages are supplied by upstream, it's not the same as the
> Gentoo devs providing compiled packages, although they do in the GRP
> collections.
>
> It's no big deal upgrading KDE anyway. Set PORTAGE_NICENESS to a suitable
> value and you can keep using the computer while the new KDE is compiled
> in the background. KDE is slotted, so installing 3.5 has no effect on the
> 3.4.x version you are currently using.

Good tips, thanks... but in this case I'm running a full install from
scratch and would like to be emerging some of the other needed stuff.
That task would be somewhat lessened too just by having X available.

I'm no stranger to console and `screen' but still hard to beat what
you can do with several desktops, pager  and unlimited xterms.

I'm no where near knowledgable enough to know what I can emerge while
kde is grinding away.... probably should have waited on it, but then
it pulls in some of the other stuff too.

Another big nasty package I have to go is emacs-cvs.  Nasty in this
case because of all the X related stuff if depends on, and of course
I'm in console mode for now so there is a bunch of it for
dependancies.

Do you know off-hand if I would be digging myself into a hole by
running and emerge emacs-cvs while this pentium4 is gnawing away at
kde?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1549 bytes --]

On Saturday 10 December 2005 10:47, Harry Putnam wrote:
> First off, this is an install from scratch.
>
> While your comment sounds smart, this really only puts off doing it
> later.  

^^ huh?

> And the mindnumbing confusion of what parts of kde do what. 
> I'm not compiling kde-meta either, but I've got bit more than once
> with missing stuff I later needed.

When did I say meta...

> I just don't find it all that embracing flopping around in the many many
> ways one can screw up with USE var,  KEYWORDS and the dozens of
> combinations of there use..

I'm not sure quite how you're messing with your USE flags...

> Especially when I want and need to be doing something else.

sleep?

> I appreciate that gentoo is a source distro and even some of the
> advantages of that, but I agree with the few other posters here that
> say kde is a first rate candidate for a binary distribution.

Good luck if you don't want arts or gstreamer too.. I heard that's included, 
which pulls in gtk libs and goodies, and then at the end of the day your 
binary distro has pulled in more -devel/other depend packages because it 
can't realistically decide what the user needs on their system.  I've heard 
the "Oh it takes time" argument before, but personally I'd rather take the 
time and have the features I want, then find out "Oh this deb/rpm/whatever 
doesn't have feature [a]" and spend loads more time trying to find a package 
that days, or compile my own (which brings us back to point A...).  

Chris White

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1375 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:01 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:


> > It's no big deal upgrading KDE anyway. Set PORTAGE_NICENESS to a
> > suitable value and you can keep using the computer while the new KDE
> > is compiled in the background. KDE is slotted, so installing 3.5 has
> > no effect on the 3.4.x version you are currently using.
> 
> Good tips, thanks... but in this case I'm running a full install from
> scratch and would like to be emerging some of the other needed stuff.
> That task would be somewhat lessened too just by having X available.

Then download a GRP CD, do a stage 3 install then install, X, KDE etc.
from the GRP CD. That's how I did it and had a full working system in
just over and hour. I was able to set my USE flags, sysnc portage and
re-emerge everything that needed  it later on.

> Do you know off-hand if I would be digging myself into a hole by
> running and emerge emacs-cvs while this pentium4 is gnawing away at
> kde?

Generally, as long as the packages have nothing to do with one another,
it is safe to install concurrently. To be really safe, you could use
Ctrl-z to pause one emerge while installing another package, then type
"fg" to restart". I'd go for the GRP packages though, and upgrade later
in the background.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Run with scissors. Remove mattress tags. Top post. Be a rebel.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Holly Bostick]

Gerhard Hoogterp schreef:
> On Friday 09 December 2005 23:20, Tom Smith wrote:
> 
>> Gentoo is a source-based distribution. This means that the software
>>  you receive comes in the form of source code. It's up to you to 
>> install (which includes compiling) the software with your specific
>>  preferences--this is what makes Gentoo what it is.
> 
> 
> While this is true and one of the things that makes gentoo gentoo, 
> there are already binary packages in portage. mozilla-bin, 
> openoffice-bin. Mostly big packages which take some time to compile.
>  So the idea of having a pre-compiled KDE isn't that alien to the 
> world of gentoo..
> 

Oh, phooey,  Gerhard (sorry).

People, it's not like KDE just got huge yesterday or something.

There's a whole herd that has to manage the installation parameters of
KDE, version after verson, and that is no easy task... plus they had to
manage the migration to the split ebuilds, which was even more difficult
(and they did an outstanding job; it went quite smoothly overall, if you
think about it).

Do you think that these people wouldn't make their work easier if they
could, if making their work easier provided an overwhelming benefit to
Gentoo as a whole?

Does it never occur to you that there might be a *reason* that KDE is
not provided as a full binary package (in *addition* to the
compile-only, thank you very much, since some of us only use some KDE
programs and don't want the full-bloat KDE installed just to do so)?

After all, you can both compile or install the packages named above
(mozilla, firefox, thunderbird, OO.o). But not KDE.

Why, oh why? Why did KDE go to splitting the packages that make up the
DE, rather than making the DE even more monolithic somehow (if that is
possible)?

There is obviously some overriding benefit to modularity for the KDE
team (as for the X.org team, which is also migrating to a modular format
for their packge), and this benefit migrates down to Gentoo as a
source-based distro (as opposed to binary based distros like Mandriva or
FC, which seem much less likely to find an advantage from modular packages).

So take advantage of the benefit, instead of complaining. You need/want
all of KDE, but do you need/want all of it /now/?

What's wrong with emerging kdebase-meta to get a basic session, and
/then/ emerging whatever odds and ends you need from it, or -- perish
the thought-- emerging something small like IceWM first (you should have
a fallback WM anyway, in case KDE breaks), and then logging into /that/
and emerging kde-meta, if you must have every single part of KDE right
now, up to and including every pointless part that you are not going to
use until next month, if ever?

Both kdegames-meta and kdeedu-meta are dependencies of kde-meta.
Honestly, do you actually /need/ to be _/sure/_ that kjumpingcube and
kenolaba are installed before you log into your first session
(kdegames-meta dependencies)? Is logging into your session beyond
pointless if klatin is not installed (kdeedu-meta dependency)?
Apparently the KDE dev team doesn't think so, which is why they've made
it easier for /everybody/ to install a basic (and even relatively
full-featured) KDE session without having to wait for the massive number
of optional KDE packages to compile (don't forget, the maintainers of
any given binary distro have to compile all of this stuff too, to
provide the binary, and people on dial-up likely appreciate the cost
savings of smaller binaries to install).

And of course, it's a massive benefit to people who don't use all of KDE;
from people like me who use almost none, to people like my
mother-in-law, who --if she used Linux-- would likely only use the basic
session, Konq, KMail, and KOffice and maybe kpatience.

Figuring out what you actually need takes time, but you'd still save
time by emerging only that and skipping the rest. If you must have a
binary, then use the --buildpkg option to create one, back it up, and
make a nice KDE Packages disk for the future.

NAME
       emerge - Command-line interface to the Portage system

 --buildpkg (-b)
              Tells  emerge to build binary packages for all ebuilds
processed in addition to actually merging the packages.  Useful for
 maintainers  or  if  you  administrate multiple Gentoo Linux
systems (build once, emerge tbz2s everywhere).  The package will
be created   in  the  ${PKGDIR}/All  directory.   An
alternative  for already-merged packages is to use quickpkg which creates a
 tbz2 from the live filesystem.

Feel like a member of the dev team-- that's what they'd have to do to
provide such a disk themselves, so why shouldn't you do it for yourself
if you need it?

Holly




-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Saturday 10 December 2005 10:47, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> First off, this is an install from scratch.
>>
>> While your comment sounds smart, this really only puts off doing it
>> later.  
>
> ^^ huh?
>
>> And the mindnumbing confusion of what parts of kde do what. 
>> I'm not compiling kde-meta either, but I've got bit more than once
>> with missing stuff I later needed.
>
> When did I say meta...

I was differentiating what you did say `kdebase' with the full blown
kde-meta and noting I was somewhere in the middle with an 
emerge -v kde.

>> I just don't find it all that embracing flopping around in the many many
>> ways one can screw up with USE var,  KEYWORDS and the dozens of
>> combinations of there use..
>
> I'm not sure quite how you're messing with your USE flags...

Every concievable foolish thing I'm sure...: ).

I wasn't really arguing with you in my response.  Only saying that for
us unlearned folks, the system of USE variables (how they are
compiled) and the use of KEYWORD masking, provide a somemwhat
bewildering array of ways to do things and therefor ways to get it
wrong too.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:

> Then download a GRP CD, do a stage 3 install then install, X, KDE etc.
> from the GRP CD. That's how I did it and had a full working system in
> just over and hour. I was able to set my USE flags, sysnc portage and
> re-emerge everything that needed  it later on.

Now this does sound really smart.  I wish I'd have thought of that.
But now its a bit late I guess since `emerge -v kde' errored out after
hours of grinding along, in  what is to me a baffling way.

I'm posting this new error in a moment under thread:

   Subject: kde compile ends in unusual error - fs problem?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Gerhard Hoogterp]

On Saturday 10 December 2005 11:58, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Gerhard Hoogterp schreef:

> > While this is true and one of the things that makes gentoo gentoo,
> > there are already binary packages in portage. mozilla-bin,
> > openoffice-bin. Mostly big packages which take some time to compile.
> >  So the idea of having a pre-compiled KDE isn't that alien to the
> > world of gentoo..
>
> Oh, phooey,  Gerhard (sorry).

NP.. happily phooey away..;-) It wasn't my question and I already did my 
compile session.. Only 3 days due to some hurdles, toxml who dosn't know 
about its dependency on libxlst and hal wanting a newer kernel (but not MM- 
as it doesn't seem to have the needed feature.. so back to gentoo kernel.. ) 
But oh well, that's the goodness that's gentoo and sorting it out yourself 
gives on that soft glowing "almost-guru" feeling..;-)

> People, it's not like KDE just got huge yesterday or something.

Nope, but on a slow machine it IS big.. and trying to keep an 400mhz amd-k6 
somewhat up to date as a gateway (without KDE, but compiling glibc or 
apache/php/mysql isn't much fun either) I can see that's a problem for some. 
Of course the question is if they should run kde on such a machine, but 
that's up to them..  I don't blame them for asking. But seeing my hurdles 
while upgrading, I doubt that just binary kde packages is going to help them 
much. 

Gerhard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 759 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:58:19 +0100, Holly Bostick wrote:

> There is obviously some overriding benefit to modularity for the KDE
> team (as for the X.org team, which is also migrating to a modular format
> for their packge), and this benefit migrates down to Gentoo as a
> source-based distro (as opposed to binary based distros like Mandriva or
> FC, which seem much less likely to find an advantage from modular
> packages).

Debian and Mandrake were using fine-grained packages for KDE years ago.
Gentoo is one of the last distros to split KDE, presumably because it is
that much more involved with a source-based system.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Windows 98, the most installed system in the world, I know, I've done it
5 or 6 times myself.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:49:30 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:

> > When did I say meta...
> 
> I was differentiating what you did say `kdebase' with the full blown
> kde-meta and noting I was somewhere in the middle with an 
> emerge -v kde.

kde-base/kde is a meta package, it pulls in all the monolithic KDE
builds. If you are concerned about installation compile times, you should
not be trying to build the whole of KDE. Do you really need all of
kdegames, kdeedu and kdetoys to get your system running? Stick with
kde-base/kdebase or kde-base/kdebase-meta, you can cancel your current
emerge and merge one of these instead, then add the rest of what you want
once the system is running.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Joystick: (n.) a device essential for performing business tasks and
training exercises esp. favored by pilots, tank commanders, riverboat
          gamblers, and medieval warlords.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Harry Putnam]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:

> kde-base/kde is a meta package, it pulls in all the monolithic KDE
> builds. If you are concerned about installation compile times, you should
> not be trying to build the whole of KDE. Do you really need all of
> kdegames, kdeedu and kdetoys to get your system running? Stick with
> kde-base/kdebase or kde-base/kdebase-meta, you can cancel your current
> emerge and merge one of these instead, then add the rest of what you want
> once the system is running.

I'm confused here. (even more..)

Before starting the compile:
I ran a comparision of `emerge -v -p kde' and 
emerge -v -p kde-meta

The last showed a much larger pile of dependancies than the former.
So I ran the former.

I've now canceled as suggested and running `emerge  kde-base/kdebase'

It only showed the main kde-3.4X as dependancy.  But with all the
screwups I've managed to get these kde packages installed:
(And don't need several of them)

kde-base/kdegraphics-3.4.1-r1 *
kde-base/kdelibs-3.4.1-r1 *
kde-base/kdebase-pam-6 *
kde-base/kde-env-3-r4 *
kde-base/arts-3.4.1-r2 *
kde-base/kdebase-3.4.1-r1 *
kde-base/kdeartwork-3.4.1 *
kde-base/kdepim-3.4.1-r2 *
kde-base/kdegames-3.4.1 *
kde-base/kdeutils-3.4.1 *
kde-base/kdenetwork-3.4.1-r1 *
kde-base/kdeedu-3.4.1-r1 *

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Brett I. Holcomb]

Did you check out the Gentoo docs on kde split ebuilds?  It has a lot of good 
info.  I started to emerge with the kde and then decided to go with the meta 
so per the instructions I had to remove some stuff - it shows up as blocked.  

On Saturday 10 December 2005 11:31, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:
> > kde-base/kde is a meta package, it pulls in all the monolithic KDE
> > builds. If you are concerned about installation compile times, you should
> > not be trying to build the whole of KDE. Do you really need all of
> > kdegames, kdeedu and kdetoys to get your system running? Stick with
> > kde-base/kdebase or kde-base/kdebase-meta, you can cancel your current
> > emerge and merge one of these instead, then add the rest of what you want
> > once the system is running.
>
> I'm confused here. (even more..)
>
> Before starting the compile:
> I ran a comparision of `emerge -v -p kde' and
> emerge -v -p kde-meta
>
> The last showed a much larger pile of dependancies than the former.
> So I ran the former.
>
> I've now canceled as suggested and running `emerge  kde-base/kdebase'
>
> It only showed the main kde-3.4X as dependancy.  But with all the
> screwups I've managed to get these kde packages installed:
> (And don't need several of them)
>
> kde-base/kdegraphics-3.4.1-r1 *
> kde-base/kdelibs-3.4.1-r1 *
> kde-base/kdebase-pam-6 *
> kde-base/kde-env-3-r4 *
> kde-base/arts-3.4.1-r2 *
> kde-base/kdebase-3.4.1-r1 *
> kde-base/kdeartwork-3.4.1 *
> kde-base/kdepim-3.4.1-r2 *
> kde-base/kdegames-3.4.1 *
> kde-base/kdeutils-3.4.1 *
> kde-base/kdenetwork-3.4.1-r1 *
> kde-base/kdeedu-3.4.1-r1 *

-- 

Brett I. Holcomb
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:31:26 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:

> I'm confused here. (even more..)
> 
> Before starting the compile:
> I ran a comparision of `emerge -v -p kde' and 
> emerge -v -p kde-meta
> 
> The last showed a much larger pile of dependancies than the former.

A longer list, but not larger. kde is the meta package for the monolithic
ebuilds, kde-meta is the meta package for the split ebuilds. Both of them
install all of KDE.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't be humble, you're not that great.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 914 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 15:55 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I'll probably need the asbestos drawers here shortly:
> 
> I've burned up several hours here with a grindingly slow compile of
> kde. It is an older machine ( a few years) but is a P4 2Ghz and 500MB
> ram. Is there an alternative to this?  I mean aside from using a
> lighter, faster compiling, X setup.

> Is there some burning important reason why we need to throw away hours
> and hours compiling kde?  Wouldn't a binary distribution of kde serve
> as well in most ways?



Okay, selfplugging a bit here, but thats ok, I've got a permit.  Or
wait, no I don't, so it seems that this is still unofficial and
unsupported by others than me and then only at "best effort":

http://chinstrap.alternating.net/





-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Daevid Vincent]

> > He should have been here when I installed Gentoo on a 
> 200Mhz machine.
> 
> He should have watched me compiling Apache, PHP, MySQL and a lot of
> other packages on my Pentium 100 with 48MB of RAM, what other distro
> could turn that machine on a useful server other than Gentoo. Keep the

Yeah yeah yeah... Great ol' glory days... Guess what... It's not the 80's
anymore. 
CPUs are fast, but the programs are still monolithic and take days to
compile.

I fully agree (and have brought this up before months and years ago) -- I
believe we should have binaries available for the big packages like KDE, OO,
Gnome, etc. Ya'll that like to waste your time compiling can keep on doing
that, while the rest of us would like to get some work done.

The thing that's frustrating me right now, is that I just installed KDE 3.5
the other day, then upgraded to the new GCC. After a revdep, it apparently
has broken all my libc something or other and so I'm once again re-compiling
KDE to fix that! ...joy, only 176 packages to go... :-\

And for you all that want to say -- "switch Distros", your logic is flawed.
Just because I don't want to waste 3 days or more compiling KDE on a
2Ghz/640MB notebook, doesn't mean I don't want the other benefits of Gentoo,
like "emerge -u world" and the fact that when I do need to install from
source (like something that isn't in portage), it usually just compiles
fine. RedHat 8 NEVER worked that way for me.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Steven Susbauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1809 bytes --]

I forget where, but I did see some site at some time that had most of
portage compiled in x86 binaries...

On 12/13/05, Daevid Vincent <daevid@daevid.com> wrote:
>
> > > He should have been here when I installed Gentoo on a
> > 200Mhz machine.
> >
> > He should have watched me compiling Apache, PHP, MySQL and a lot of
> > other packages on my Pentium 100 with 48MB of RAM, what other distro
> > could turn that machine on a useful server other than Gentoo. Keep the
>
> Yeah yeah yeah... Great ol' glory days... Guess what... It's not the 80's
> anymore.
> CPUs are fast, but the programs are still monolithic and take days to
> compile.
>
> I fully agree (and have brought this up before months and years ago) -- I
> believe we should have binaries available for the big packages like KDE,
> OO,
> Gnome, etc. Ya'll that like to waste your time compiling can keep on doing
> that, while the rest of us would like to get some work done.
>
> The thing that's frustrating me right now, is that I just installed KDE
> 3.5
> the other day, then upgraded to the new GCC. After a revdep, it apparently
> has broken all my libc something or other and so I'm once again
> re-compiling
> KDE to fix that! ...joy, only 176 packages to go... :-\
>
> And for you all that want to say -- "switch Distros", your logic is
> flawed.
> Just because I don't want to waste 3 days or more compiling KDE on a
> 2Ghz/640MB notebook, doesn't mean I don't want the other benefits of
> Gentoo,
> like "emerge -u world" and the fact that when I do need to install from
> source (like something that isn't in portage), it usually just compiles
> fine. RedHat 8 NEVER worked that way for me.
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
------------------------
Steven Susbauer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Richard Fish]

On 12/13/05, Daevid Vincent <daevid@daevid.com> wrote:
> I fully agree (and have brought this up before months and years ago) -- I
> believe we should have binaries available for the big packages like KDE, OO,
> Gnome, etc. Ya'll that like to waste your time compiling can keep on doing
> that, while the rest of us would like to get some work done.

In practice, I think the only way this could be accomplished is if
Gentoo had actual releases, due to the dependancies.  For example,
take KDE and X.  KDE 3.5 is stabilized this week, so you download
binaries of that.  Now two weeks later modular X.org 7.0 is
stabilized.  So now you have to download all new binaries of KDE3.5
built against the new version of X.org, plus OOo, Gnome, or whatever
other X packages you have installed.  Then a week later a new gcc is
released, and you have to go through this again, because they all
depend on libstdc++.

And all of these releases have to be carefully coordinated by the
developers, since you can't have a binary download of the new X.org
until the new KDE and GNOME builds are ready, and you have to update
all of the dependency versions for every release, because now release
-r2 of KDE-bin requires =xorg-server-bin-6.8.2* ||
=xorg-server-6.8.2*, while -r3 requires 7.0.   My guess is that these
binary releases wouldn't happen until a planned 'update cycle', when
everything would be updated at once.  And now you have the same
features/problems as Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.

Note that the current binary releases of OOo cheat...they install
private versions of most dependancies.  So the -bin comes with it's
own version of python, java, libstdc++, etc.

Aside from the complete waste of disk space (which is still very
limited and expensive on a laptop, as you know), trying to keep up
with security advisories with this approach does not sound like any
fun to me.  What happens if a new security bug is found is libjpeg,
for example, and there are 15 different packages with private versions
of libjpeg?

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Holly Bostick]

Daevid Vincent schreef:

Y'know, it's a bit early in my morning for so much whine, so that's
probably why I'm a bit testy....


>>> He should have been here when I installed Gentoo on a
>> 
>> 200Mhz machine.
>> 
>> He should have watched me compiling Apache, PHP, MySQL and a lot of
>>  other packages on my Pentium 100 with 48MB of RAM
> 
> Yeah yeah yeah... Great ol' glory days... Guess what... It's not the
> 80's anymore. CPUs are fast, but the programs are still monolithic
> and take days to compile.

No, in fact they are *not* monolithic any more, that is the entire point
of the split ebuilds and modular X.

> Ya'll that like to waste your time compiling can keep on doing that,
> while the rest of us would like to get some work done.

Those of us that like to "waste our time compiling" actually do it in
such a way that we *can* "get some work done" while the compile is
progressing... maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe your work requires
the "big builds" in some way (meaning X mostly, since KDE is by no means
a requirement to get something done).

> 
> The thing that's frustrating me right now, is that I just installed
> KDE 3.5 the other day, then upgraded to the new GCC. After a revdep,
> it apparently has broken all my libc something or other and so I'm
> once again re-compiling KDE to fix that! ...joy, only 176 packages to
> go... :-\

Are you logged in all this time? If so, what's the problem?

> 
> And for you all that want to say -- "switch Distros", your logic is
> flawed. Just because I don't want to waste 3 days or more compiling
> KDE on a 2Ghz/640MB notebook, doesn't mean I don't want the other
> benefits of Gentoo,

Fine, you want the "benefits" without the price-- now for myself, I
consider the ability to customize my KDE install (in my case to the
absolute minimum necessary) to be a benefit, but apparently you don't.

So check out http://desktop.vidalinux.com/ , supposedly they have a club
(that you must pay to be a member of) that provides binary packages.
Maybe you'll find that price more acceptable for your needs.

Unfortunately the site is down due to mobo failure atm, but hth anyway.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2300 bytes --]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:07:45 -0800, Daevid Vincent wrote:

> CPUs are fast, but the programs are still monolithic and take days to
> compile.

Why do you think the larger packages are moving to a modular structure?
This thread is about KDE, and while the monolithic packages are sytill
available, the split ebuilds are the preferred choice. 

> I fully agree (and have brought this up before months and years ago) --
> I believe we should have binaries available for the big packages like
> KDE, OO, Gnome, etc.

They are. OOo has always been available as a binary (only as a binary on
some platforms) and other packages are on the GRP discs, where the
dependencies issue Richard mentioned doesn't apply, since they are tied
to a particular Stage 3 install. The compile times are only really an
issue for initial installation, where Stage 3 + GRP brings the total time
down to around an hour. Once your desktop is running, you can continue
to use it while compiling updates.

> Ya'll that like to waste your time compiling can
> keep on doing that, while the rest of us would like to get some work
> done.

There's this thing called multitasking, where you computer lets you use
it while processing other tasks in the background. It is ideally suited
to this.

> And for you all that want to say -- "switch Distros", your logic is
> flawed. Just because I don't want to waste 3 days or more compiling KDE
> on a 2Ghz/640MB notebook,

I'd take your notebook back to the shop. My 1GHz G4 iBook with similar RAM
updated KDE to 3.5 in around 12 hours, most of which was overnight.

> doesn't mean I don't want the other benefits
> of Gentoo, like "emerge -u world" and the fact that when I do need to
> install from source (like something that isn't in portage), it usually
> just compiles fine. RedHat 8 NEVER worked that way for me.

Because Red Hat uses binary packages, which raises incompatibilities. It
is easy to install non-portage packages from source because everything
else is also compiled from source.

If you really want current packages compiled on someone else's computer,
they are already available and the URI was posted to this thread last
week.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

In a classified ad: "Tired of cleaning yourself? Let me do it."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is there and Alternative to compiling kde?

[Christoph Eckert]

> And all of these releases have to be carefully coordinated by the
> developers, since you can't have a binary download of the new X.org
> until the new KDE and GNOME builds are ready, and you have to update
> all of the dependency versions for every release, because now release
> -r2 of KDE-bin requires =xorg-server-bin-6.8.2* ||
> =xorg-server-6.8.2*, while -r3 requires 7.0.   My guess is that these
> binary releases wouldn't happen until a planned 'update cycle', when
> everything would be updated at once.  And now you have the same
> features/problems as Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.

thanks for pointing this out. Very interesting for me to read.


Best regards


    ce


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list