On 10/24/2009 04:30 AM, Lars Bamberger wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > >> This is mostly for Wayne, but anyone else working on Gnome-2.28.0, I'm >> building in the /opt/gnome-2.28.0 prefix as opposed to /usr and thought >> these build notes might be useful. >> > Same here. > > On my system I created some "compatibility" symlinks: > > $GNOME_PREFIX/share/icons -> /usr/share/icons > $GNOME_PREFIX/share/pixmaps -> /usr/share/pixmaps > $GNOME_PREFIX/python$PYTHON_VERSION -> /usr/lib/python$PYTHON_VERSION > $GNOME_PREFIX/lib/gio -> /usr/lib/gio/modules > > This works for me, but it might also break things as some packages might > step on each others toes. Anyhow one might consider putting these > instructions in the book at one time. > > Lars > Unfortunately, it is a slow, time consuming process to validate a set of instructions as large as the Gnome stack. KDE and Xorg suffer the same issues, but are certainly a little more forgiving than the 6 month Gnome release cycle. Gnome will be a *little* more manageable with 2.30/3.0 with art, bonobo, canvas, eel, glade, print, *ui, and all their dependencies gone. However, it seems that the developers aren't really concerned with alternate installation prefixes, they obviously do not test this scenario, and the patches and 'fixes' required will continue to grow. Upstreaming the patches has mixed results.
I've hinted at this suggestion before, and mulled this over for a while now. I'm now suggesting that BLFS no longer support the alternate installation prefixes for X, Gnome, and KDE. The alternate prefixes can be supported by the wiki if people are willing to commit to it. What does everyone else think of this? -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
