On Wednesday, 16. January 2008, David Naylor wrote: > One issue is with kde apps with the same name, if they are not > referred to by full paths, which one gets preference. Depends, I > think, which is the default desktop, 3 or 4.
I have not tested it yet myself, but I saw documentation from Linux distributions that ship both which states that, if KDE4 is running, kde4's configured directory for executables (/usr/local/kde4/bin most probably in our case) is searched first. > This could be setup > using rc.d/ scripts with PATH being set to give priority to either > local/ or kde4prefix/? (And get kdm running using them as well?) Since both KDE3 and KDE4 come with startup scripts, those are usually the ideal places to set up $path for the session. > > Also, default prefix moves are always a horrible experience for users - > > just remember the big X11 move not so long ago. Thus I would very much > > like to find one location for KDE4 now and then stick with it forever. > > I found it made life easier (but I wasn't involved in the porting effort!) It surely does. My point was that moving X.org in existing installations from /usr/X11R6 to /usr/local was not completely trivial (see /usr/ports/UPDATING) and rather time-consuming. > > > You could put them (or links to them) on the wiki: > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/KDE4. Account creation is open to everyone, but I > > think arved@ would need to give you write access to the page first (I'd > > like write access as well btw, account is MichaelNottebrock :). > > I'll send in a request this weekend (for you as well). I've saved two > back traces for crashed apps. Strange there is qt_m.so.3 is in them? > I've post another e-mail titles 'Qt4 crashed by Qt3 libs!', it will > provide some details. Seen that. Hmm. My guess would be that it's actually the kde executable that picks up both (is it dynamically linked? What does ldd say?). > > Does out-of-source build mean builddir!=sourcedir? > > Yes, and kdelibs (possibly every other kde package) demands > out-of-source builds. It can be disabled but I'm not sure if a build > would then work? I just do: > mkdir $BUILDSRC/build > (cd $BUILDSRC/build; cmake ../; make) > to get it to compile (with all variables set for cmake) Even the old buildsystem allowed for out-of-source builds, but it was not the default there. It doesn't really matter much anyway, anything below ${WRKDIR} is fine. > > At the moment it is vaporware(?), but I agree we should have one in place > > at least once kdelibs and kdebase are in good shape. > > I could create a bsd.cmake.mk this weekend if it is urgently required > (it will be my first such file...)? Sure, if you like to - if you do not feel like giving yourself a crashcourse on bsd.port.mk in order to be able to write one though, that is fine, too - my plan is to start diving into kdesupport tonight or tomorrow and that will be a good opportunity to start a basic bsd.cmake.mk as I go, which can then be further fleshed out as required. In any case, no effort is wasted, we can always merge different attempts later. ISTR somebody else wrote to the list a while back that they started a bsd.cmake.mk themselves, it's not at all too late to submit it. Cheers, -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ kde-freebsd mailing list kde-freebsd@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-freebsd
