Armin K. wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 07:28 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Armin K. wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2012 06:45 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>> Armin K. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Great. And then everyone told me how /etc/gnome and prefix other than
>>>>> /usr can work. Well, yes they can. But there is a lot of additional
>>>>> configuration that needs to be done, and also I still haven't found a
>>>>> way to make policykit rules installed somewhere else than in /usr
>>>>> available to the daemon. So, I am asking again. If everyone else agrees,
>>>>> I'd like to drop GNOME_SYSCONFDIR - lot easier than making symlinks and
>>>>> if possible GNOME_PREFIX or keep it with fat warning that it might break
>>>>> things (that is if anyone wants to test if that works, I'm not going to
>>>>> do that).
>>>> I'd prefer not to build any environment like kde or gnome in /usr. It
>>>> makes it very difficult to build another version while using the current
>>>> version.
>>> That's craziest thing I've ever heard. Why would someone have installed
>>> for example gnome 3.2 and 3.4 at the same time? I never even heard of
>>> someone trying to do such crazy thing.
>> It's called testing. If you have gnome 3.2 in /usr, how do you upgrade
>> to gnome 3.4 while still using gnome 3.2? If you make a mistake, how do
>> you revert?
>>
>> -- Bruce
>
> As much as I point that installing anywhere else is plain wrong, you
> seem to ignore me. It is possible to do upgrade, you just have to know
> what are you doing. I made a switch from 3.3.3 through 3.3.90, 3.3.91,
> 3.3.92 and now 3.4 ... There were some incompatibilities, for sure ...
>
> But still, your idea is pretty much wrong.
>
> Let's imagine you have glib 2.30 and glib 2.32 installed, one in
> /usr/gnome32 other in /usr/gnome34 ... Which one would you make default
> one? There will be always .so conflicts. Incorrect binary version could
> be used at runtime which would potentialy break older app, or even
> worse, it could pick up to use older version of glib which would render
> new apps useless, resulting in undefined references, runtime errors and
> such. Yes, this can be corrected using rpath, but no average person
> would think of that.
>
> Also, think ... How distros upgrade their stuff? It is always at same
> locations ... But that proves that upgrade can be done ... Failures can
> be expected in both ways, in yours and in mine ...
>
> Also, with this I anounce that I give up on upgrading gnome, since we
> can't sort this out. I don't want to produce something buildable, but
> not fully functional. Sorry.
I'm sorry you feel that way. It should be easy to control what binaries
and libraries are accessed via PATH and /etc/ld.so.conf or
LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I'm not opposed to building gnome in /usr, but we
should allow users to implement the "Your distro, your rules" philosophy.
If I build in /opt/gnome32 and have /opt/gnome -> /opt/gome32 and again
in /opt/gnome34, then a change in symlink is all that really should be
necessary.
I guess I don't really understand your position. If you just use
export GNOME_PREFIX=/usr
export GNOME_SYSCONFDIR=/etc/gnome/3.2.2
export XDG_CONFIG_DIRS=${GNOME_SYSCONFDIR}/xdg
export XDG_DATA_DIRS=/usr/share:/usr/local/share
How does that affect what you want to do?
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
