Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Saturday 20 December 2008 11:53:05 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
You can start by giving the relevant information, like what exactly
related to kde is in world?. Chances are you only have KDE there, and
emerge will probably want to nuke all but the latest SLOT. Common
problems with KDE:
Put 'kdeprefix' in USE and rebuild
Put KDE:3.5 in world and recheck.
This last one often needs to be redone recursively to get everything in
world that needs to be there. I've heard that autounmask helps with this
kdeprefix has nothing to do with KDE3. It's not needed. It's only
needed to have many KDE4 versions at the same time.
That's not true.
Yes it is.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/kde/kde4-guide.xml#doc_chap3
"This restriction does not apply to KDE 3.5 [...]. You can have a
non-kdeprefix version of KDE 4.1, KDE 3.5 and a live version of KDE
installed on the same system."
kdeprefix is *only* for multiple KDE 4 installations.
With USE=-kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/
With USE=kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/kde/4.x
Yes, and KDE3 is *always* installed in /usr/kde/3.5 no matter what.
Therefore, kdeprefix is totally irrelevant here.
The net result, when co-installed with kde-3.x, is that your various *PATH
variables will always have 3 before 4 or vice-versa. Which is a major pita
trying to get 3 and 4 to co-exist. Try it sometime, and watch KDE-4 try to
read KDE-3's config and data files. Or have KDE-4 launch konqueror-4 and
always get it right every time.
Has nothing to do with kdeprefix :P
There's only one sane way to install KDE on gentoo - always use SLOTs, always
put every version in it's own directory in /usr/kde/, always add the relevant
directories to PATH | LDPATH | etc at start-up. The other option is to have
one, and only one, kde version at any time.
You're misinformed, I think. For the reasons above :)
I'll try the KDE:3.5 thingy. I wonder though why the heck I have to do
this. KDE4 should have been put in its own tree.
Well that's your opinion, you are entitled to it. The KDE devs don't agree
though, and their three of a kind trumps your two pairs. If you are going to
assert that KDE-4 SHOULD be in it's own tree, then you are going to have to
present a sane argument for why, and for why the existing decision is
incorrect. Just saying something "should be" doesn't cut the mustard in this
case.
The reason is that KDE4 is a new product and has nothing to do with KDE3
other than the name. And another reason is the problem I'm describing
in this very thread which should have not been a problem if KDE4 had its
own tree. Now I'm required to have non-straightforward voodoo performed
to get things right just because the devs made a wrong decision.
