Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:25:11 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: kde-freebsd@lists.csociety.org Subject: Re: [kde-freebsd] KDE ports, multiple versions, KStandardDirs, and hier(7) Message-ID: <20020326182511.GR22998@squall.waterspout.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all, I'm reproducing this message verbatim from the KDE/FreeBSD list. You can see it and the thread on there at: http://lists.csociety.org/pipermail/kde-freebsd/2002-March/thread.html#883 [... text below ...] Well, soon enough I'll have to make a choice regarding this. In the past, we've always obeyed hier(7) and kept (partial) backward compat with at least Qt. The last few months I've been considering writing a config program similar to sdl-config which prints out where libs and incs are for e.g. configure scripts. Configure scripts are one of our big problems: with the current qt/kde v2, when things are not built using the ports infrastructure, they fail to find things like moc2. But now that v3 is onto us, it seems I can not much longer delay things. So right now I have a choice: 1) I can continue the usual FreeBSD way for Qt/KDE: a. Obey hier(7). b. Break default qt/kde configure scripts. c. install things with different names than what qt/kde normally install. 2) I can break hier(7) by installing in ${PREFIX}/kde${VER}: a. Gain the ability to provide backwards compatability both in ports and packages. b. Fix qt/kde configure scripts. c. Install things like they're supposed to be. 3) I can obey hier(7) by installing in ${PREFIX}: a. Fix qt/kde configure scripts. b. Install things like they're supposed to be. c. Lose the ability to support multiple installed versions of KDE. [ also included for observers but not being considered: ] 4) I can write [qt,kde]-config programs which output the approprate location for bin,lib,include,share,etc. and install things in e.g. ${PREFIX}/bin/kde${VER}/. a. Fix qt/kde configure scripts in the long run. b. Install things like they're supposed to be. c. Gain the ability to provide backwards compatability both in ports and packages. d. Obey hier(7). e. Requires fundamental changes in KDE regarding how applications request things. So given the choices [1-3], of which are KDE/FreeBSD users most fond? My current leaning is either choice 2 or 3. [... snip text of message ...] Regards, -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020326182511.GR22998>