On 04/03/2012 08:27 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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
First of all I've not built gnome with LFS instructions for a while,
since 2 or 3 times I failed with same (never understood the reason) ...
And again, /etc/gnome/3.2.2 is just wrong to me, non versioned directory
could at least work ... mostly because of xdg and gconf stuff.
Anyways, enough said. Do whatever you think it is correct. I won't get
in anyone's way.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
