Alexey Shvetsov wrote: > On Воскресенье 04 января 2009 20:14:57 Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I wanted to raise this, and it should possibly be an issue we discuss at >> the next meeting. Should all live ebuilds default to +kdeprefix? >> >> Personally I think they should. Anyone wanting an all -kdeprefix system >> can set -kdeprefix in their make.conf, and those of us keeping a stable >> in -kdeprefix, and a live in +kdeprefix can continue to do this. >> >> When I originally committed the eclass changes to the default for live >> ebuilds this was the case. It was since changed without any discussion. >> I think the previous behaviour represents the most flexible approach for >> our user and development community. >> >> Is there a flaw in this logic? As far as I can see anyone wanting the >> current behaviour can add a line to their make.conf, the old behaviour >> is impossible to reproduce now without maintaining a patched >> kde4-base.eclass. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Marcus >> > Personaly I think that all kde-base live ebuilds should be in +kdeprefix > while > misc packages susch as amarok and so on could be both +kdeprefix and - > kdeprefix > Also I think that misc packages could be installed with snapshots or even > stable kde > You didn't address the main question I was posing - should live ebuilds of misc packages default to +kdeprefix? I think they should and see no reason for not doing this. It allows people to maintain a live/stable system using -/+kdeprefix respectively if they want to. If they want everything installed in /usr they can explicitly set -kdeprefix.
You bring up several other points but I am not sure they all need considering at the same time... Thanks, Marcus
