Make KDEMod the official KDE for Arch Linux

Pierre · 2008-05-20 06:40:34

funkyou wrote:

Pierre wrote:
It's not only the splitting; afaik kdemod has added some eyecandy patches to kde and qt. Another problem is that they seem to use a custom version of makepkg.
The patches are no issue for me, because they can be removed... We have also a new policy in terms of patches for KDE4: From KDE4 on, we will stay on the vanilla path and only include Arch-specific fixes... (and maybe some small patches that are really useful)

Good decision. :-)

And yes, we are using a patched version of makepkg, which has also been submitted to the Arch bugtracker. But if you look at this one, you will notice that 1. the patch is pretty small and easy, and 2. that it could save you guys from doubled work on the packages where you implemented splitting "the arch way" by using 2 different PKGBUILDs for example... IMHO its perfect for localization packages, just as an example

I would be open to such a splitting extension for makepkg. But I don't think it's that easy as it is for you. Our devtools and db-scripts would have to be prepared to deal with multipile packages per single PKGBUILD.

Imho splitting packages is not evil at all, but usefull from time to time. For example this would solve some nasty optinal dependencies, too.

[..]
4. We not having a clue (this happens sometimes when we dont now that something has changed (again) in Arch, maybe we need more communication here)

That would be your turn. A good starting point would be reading arch-dev-public and post to arch-general. I think most devs prefer mailinglists over the forums.

[..]
3. And at last: If Arch developers decide to change PKGBUILD syntax for example, then point it out to everyone, because its a critical thing and you would avoid a lot of hassle and forum posts... Maybe write a news entry or use the .install file coming with pacman... I just dont want to search a lot around again when makepkg has changed and no one told me about that... (Thats my only critic for the Arch devs, otherwise you guys just rock )
[..]

Are you talking about that strange change in versioned provides? Me and others were as surprised by this change as yourself. :-) I think this was a communication problem.

shining · 2008-05-20 07:27:38

Pierre wrote:

funkyou wrote:
3. And at last: If Arch developers decide to change PKGBUILD syntax for example, then point it out to everyone, because its a critical thing and you would avoid a lot of hassle and forum posts... Maybe write a news entry or use the .install file coming with pacman... I just dont want to search a lot around again when makepkg has changed and no one told me about that... (Thats my only critic for the Arch devs, otherwise you guys just rock )
Are you talking about that strange change in versioned provides? Me and others were as surprised by this change as yourself. :-) I think this was a communication problem.

It was more than just a communication problem, the whole thing did not even work properly in 3.1.0.
It was all rectified and announced for 3.1.1 :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur- … 06727.html

I think it affected more unofficial packages (which provide official ones), so I don't think it was a critical issue, but I agree it could have gone smoother.
Note that there are like one and a half Arch developer working on pacman. And this specific change originally came from a contributor. So it was hardly a decision of all Arch developers.
But maybe that is the problem, there aren't enough Arch developers involved in pacman development

Anyway, I don't think the situation is bad at all, 3.1 was a pretty good release overall imo.

funkyou · 2008-05-20 11:25:26

shining wrote:

Cerebral wrote:
For those of you saying KDEMod is KISS compared to non-split KDE packages, I put this question to you: Which of the two SOUNDS simpler?
1) Taking the tarballs from upstream KDE, and packaging them directly - one package for each upstream source (one-to-one)
2) Taking those same tarballs, investigating what applications live inside them and their interdependencies (this step must be repeated to some degree each major release), adding more lines to the PKGBUILDs used in (1), and using a patched makepkg to build the whole shebang, resulting in many packages per upstream source (many-to-one)
I would disagree that, compared to the way we do it, KDEmod is simpler. There certainly are benefits to split packages, but it seems to me that simplicity isn't one of those benefits.
I'm pretty sure that we're going to be solid on this point going forward - KDEmod is a great, and welcome project, but I doubt we'll be pulling it into the 'official' repos any time - and besides, what would be the point? If you want it, it takes all of a minute to add the kdemod repo to pacman.conf, and there you go.
Waoh, I had started to write a post exactly like that (which of the two sounds simpler? 1) ... 2) ... conclusion : kdemod is not simple but still a very nice community project)
Finally it was a good thing to cancel it, you wrote the same in better, thanks

Absolutely true... Its not as simple as "normal" Arch packaging stuff, but i think we did the most simplistic way to create splitted packages...

Pierre wrote:

[..]
4. We not having a clue (this happens sometimes when we dont now that something has changed (again) in Arch, maybe we need more communication here)
That would be your turn. A good starting point would be reading arch-dev-public and post to arch-general. I think most devs prefer mailinglists over the forums.

Good point, so far i missed that... (i am a "mailing list procrastinator" )

Pierre wrote:

And yes, we are using a patched version of makepkg, which has also been submitted to the Arch bugtracker. But if you look at this one, you will notice that 1. the patch is pretty small and easy, and 2. that it could save you guys from doubled work on the packages where you implemented splitting "the arch way" by using 2 different PKGBUILDs for example... IMHO its perfect for localization packages, just as an example
I would be open to such a splitting extension for makepkg. But I don't think it's that easy as it is for you. Our devtools and db-scripts would have to be prepared to deal with multipile packages per single PKGBUILD.

AFAIK the only influence to existing scripts and devel stuff is, that you cannot install splitted packages directly with "makepkg -i", at least with the current version of the patch... DB handling is the same (i just use repo-add) and everything else should also be the same... But dont pin me down on that I guess there are some more hurdles like managing package uploads and so forth...

Pierre wrote:

[..]
3. And at last: If Arch developers decide to change PKGBUILD syntax for example, then point it out to everyone, because its a critical thing and you would avoid a lot of hassle and forum posts... Maybe write a news entry or use the .install file coming with pacman... I just dont want to search a lot around again when makepkg has changed and no one told me about that... (Thats my only critic for the Arch devs, otherwise you guys just rock )
[..]
Are you talking about that strange change in versioned provides? Me and others were as surprised by this change as yourself. :-) I think this was a communication problem.

Yes, thats what i am talking about... In the end it was no big deal, and it actually was the only case so far where Arch did something unforeseen for me (thats what i call quality ), but when i first stumbled over this issue, it was really enerving... Mostly because i had to rebuild my complete tree 2 times

And thanks to everyone who has posted here, for the good read, the support and all the fish

zyghom · 2008-05-20 11:48:12

KDEmod looks nice
and it is lighter than KDE
and ... I don't care which one is default
I love choice in Linux - that makes me happy

I use Arch and KDEmod on my production laptop - I don't see problems with them at all
Few months ago we got "X crash" due to whatever - few commands and all was working again
but AFAIR it was neither Arch nor KDEmod mistake - buntu and others had this problem too
so guys: Keep It Smiling :-)

Misfit138 · 2008-05-20 14:09:42

SpookyET wrote:

Why isn't KDEMOD the official Arch Linux KDE? Everyone seems to like it. Does anyone actually use the KDE in extra? If they do, they should not. KDEMod is KISS.

A. KDEmod is a community project.
B. There is no reason for it to become 'official'
C. All choices for DE's (and everything else) are made by the user
D. Adding the KDEmod repo takes seconds
E. There is no reason that both cannot coexist peacefully
F. Both coexist peacefully

Arch Linux

#26 2008-05-20 06:40:34

Re: Make KDEMod the official KDE for Arch Linux

#27 2008-05-20 07:27:38

Re: Make KDEMod the official KDE for Arch Linux

#28 2008-05-20 11:25:26

Re: Make KDEMod the official KDE for Arch Linux

#29 2008-05-20 11:48:12

Re: Make KDEMod the official KDE for Arch Linux

#30 2008-05-20 14:09:42

Re: Make KDEMod the official KDE for Arch Linux

Board footer