On 2007-06-15, Dale wrote:
> Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > With big hard discs cheap and with ADSL
> > connection, the advantages of the meta packages are diminished.
>
> If I understand your meaning correctly, not everyone can get broadband.
> I'm on dial-up and it is all that is available here where I
On Monday 18 June 2007 16:36:38 Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > /var/db/pkg/world
>
> I think your system may need updating - the world file has lived
> in /var/lib/portage for some time now.
Paludis prefers it @ /var/db/pkg/world. I have both on my
On Monday 18 June 2007 14:36:05 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> I have most of KDE installed here, yet
> only 67 kde-base packages in world.
I run fairly light, I have about half that many:
$ grep -c ^kde /var/db/pkg/world
31
I do have a number of KDE applications installed from other parts of the tree
Hello Alan McKinnon,
> 'emerge *-meta' is fine if one wants everything, or 'emerge kopete
> kmail konqueror' if you just want a few bits like me, but there's this
> large no-man's land in the middle where it is just unweildy. No fault
> of Gentoo, it's all KDEs fault for having 300+ distinct apps/
On Monday 18 June 2007, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> I'm not sure USE flags for the meta packages are a good idea, they
> could add a lot of confusion. The meta packages are supposed to
> install everything, if you don't want that, don't use them.
I think what Alexander is on about is USE flags only fo
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:10:00 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> The kde-meta package is meant to replace the kde package. The is no
> advantage (and without a workable confcache, at least one disadvantage)
> to running split ebuilds.
What about the need to recompile only one part of KDE whe
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:08:52 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > Well, but as kdenetwork-meta is a dependency of kde-meta, this
> > "solution" means, that about 300 packages should be manually
> > listed, just because one package is not wanted.
>
> No, because as I covered in my other repl
Peter Ruskin wrote:
>
> With big hard discs cheap and with ADSL
> connection, the advantages of the meta packages are diminished.
>
>
If I understand your meaning correctly, not everyone can get broadband.
I'm on dial-up and it is all that is available here where I live. DSL
may be here soon
On Friday 15 June 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> I mean, what's the advantage of the kde*-meta packages over the kde
> package, when the kde*-meta require just as much "junk", as the
> kde package does? Hm, really, what's the use of the kde*-meta package
> anyway?
The -meta packages are a good ide
On Friday 15 June 2007, Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about '[gentoo-user] Finer grained kde*-meta packages (was: Make portage
assume, that a package is installed)':
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, I suggest that a
Am Freitag, 15. Juni 2007 schrieb ext Alexander Skwar:
> This would (obviously *g*) mean, that kde-meta cannot be installed
> (just as you say). This means, that a whole "shit load" of packages
> would need to be manually installed. And all that, just because you
> don't want one or two packages?
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I suggest that a cleaner method would be to not install kde-meta
> or kdenetwork-meta at all but instead just install the KDE applications
> that you require.
Actually, I disagree.
This would (obviously *g*) mean, that kde-meta cannot
12 matches
Mail list logo
