You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1 2011-02-17 01:47:37
- karper
- Member
- Registered: 2008-08-10
- Posts: 52
Why is gimp required if I want kde-meta?
For starters, I'll answer my own question: Because kde-meta depends on kde-meta-kdesdk, which depends on kdesdk-kdepalettes which apparently depends on gimp. kdesdk-kdepalettes is a package that provides "Palettes for the Gimp that match the KDE standard color palette" (from the package description). Shouldn't it be an optional dependency for gimp instead of the current situation (requiring gimp)?
(This has been the case at least since 4.5, so I'm sorry if this has already been answered before. I couldn't find any results searching the forum.)
Offline
#2 2011-02-17 01:58:03
- Allan
- Pacman
- From: Brisbane, AU
- Registered: 2007-06-09
- Posts: 11,672
- Website
Re: Why is gimp required if I want kde-meta?
What use are palettes for gimp without actually having gimp? If you do not want all the packages pulled by a meta package, then don't install it!
Offline
#3 2011-02-17 02:03:14
- karper
- Member
- Registered: 2008-08-10
- Posts: 52
Re: Why is gimp required if I want kde-meta?
I'm replying to my own post. I must be jobless.
The PKGBUILD for kdesdk provides more clues as to why this is. The relevant bits:
package_kdesdk-kdepalettes() {
pkgdesc='Palettes for the Gimp that match the KDE standard color palette'
depends=('gimp')
install -D -m644 $srcdir/${pkgbase}-${pkgver}/kdepalettes/KDE_Gimp \
$pkgdir/usr/share/gimp/2.0/palettes/KDE.gpl
}
So, we require gimp just because the KDE_Gimp color palette is being copied to a directory that won't exist unless gimp is installed. Surely there's a better way to handle this! For example, the users who need gimp can import the KDE_Gimp palette file into gimp through the GUI.
Offline
#4 2011-02-17 02:14:42
- karper
- Member
- Registered: 2008-08-10
- Posts: 52
Re: Why is gimp required if I want kde-meta?
What use are palettes for gimp without actually having gimp? If you do not want all the packages pulled by a meta package, then don't install it!
... which is an entirely valid point of view. However, the benefits of installing a meta-package (automatically adding new sub-packages upon upgrades) outweigh the disadvantages.
I was just wondering if instead of pulling in gimp, the color palette file (it's really just one tiny file) could be stored wherever KDE stores its color palettes...
Offline
#5 2011-02-17 03:20:29
- ngoonee
- Forum Fellow
- From: Between Thailand and Singapore
- Registered: 2009-03-17
- Posts: 7,362
Re: Why is gimp required if I want kde-meta?
Allan wrote:What use are palettes for gimp without actually having gimp? If you do not want all the packages pulled by a meta package, then don't install it!
... which is an entirely valid point of view. However, the benefits of installing a meta-package (automatically adding new sub-packages upon upgrades) outweigh the disadvantages.
I was just wondering if instead of pulling in gimp, the color palette file (it's really just one tiny file) could be stored wherever KDE stores its color palettes...
Pacman doesn't do 'multiple possible locations for a file', I don't think any current package manager does. It would quickly become unworkable (what if gimp gets installed in future, do you move the file back?)
Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.
Offline