[SOLVED] Quick KDE help

psilo357 · 2008-11-03 02:34:39

Ok, so I am new to arch, and did not know about this KDEmod thing. So, I have already installed full blown KDE 4.1. Is it worth the trouble to go through uninstalling the kde I have up now to put KDEmod in place of it? Is it even that easy to uninstall, then just install kdemod, or would i need to reinstall arch and start over?

Also, i don't like how the default menu works in kde 4.1, is there an easy way to get the menu to work like a normal menu? I can't seem to find the configuration options for it...

thanks for any help

Last edited by psilo357 (2008-11-12 02:26:48)

smakked · 2008-11-03 02:58:15

If you want to uninstall all KDE stuff
do

pacman -Rsc kde

but do it out of X.

Then go ahaead and add mirrors for kdemod and install that.

Last edited by smakked (2008-11-03 02:58:34)

Doehni · 2008-11-03 17:45:51

If you mean the menu in the lower left corner:
You can switch to Classic Menu Style by right clicking on the menu button (after you unlocked the widgets)

psilo357 · 2008-11-04 01:51:22

Yeah, thats all i wanted...wow, that was easy too

So, what are other peoples opinions on kdemod vs. KDE? Is it worth going through the trouble to switch from my current KDE to KDEmod? It doesn't look hard based off of smakked's instructions, but I have a feeling there woudl be a few issues with it too...if I am mistaken please let me know.

thanks for all the help guys, already Arch is starting to feel like home to me. I have used everything from ubuntu to gentoo. Gentoo was too much trouble adn I found myself constantly fixing it, and ubuntu was just too bloated and half the stuff on it I had no need for, so I was looking for something in between, and I think I have found it here. THis community is also great, the forums are a ton of help.

thanks again

ferral-cat · 2008-11-04 05:18:56

I just installed Arch for first time yesterday and I too installed it with KDE 4.1

Its beautiful but it soon begain to feel like Windows Vista so I removed it and installed XCFE

I also fool around with LXDE and am trying some of the other bare-bones options but XCFE is my main desktop now. Love being able to pull up the menu with a simple right click and it loads plenty fast for me. Its blazing fast with that varmint and then bang! The desktop has loaded in the blink of an eye

Llama · 2008-11-04 08:24:36

KDEmod is very advisable. Vanilla KDE4 is unbearably buggy at present; the KDEmod team's been doing an excellent job of fixing the showstopper bugs.

Last edited by Llama (2008-11-04 08:25:21)

Pierre · 2008-11-04 08:39:39

Please don't spread such FUD when you cannot proove it. Where are all these Bugs which kdemod does not have? Where are the bug reports?

Llama · 2008-11-04 09:02:33

In the KDEmod bug tracker, where else? Specifically, bug 163: it's my personal showstopper .

Pierre · 2008-11-04 09:22:09

This is fixed upstream (where it belongs and not somewhere in the bugtracker of kdemod or ubuntu where neither me or the kde devs will have a look).

Rasi · 2008-11-04 09:28:59

Llama wrote:

KDEmod is very advisable. Vanilla KDE4 is unbearably buggy at present; the KDEmod team's been doing an excellent job of fixing the showstopper bugs.

Sorry to disappoint you, but kdemod is totally vanilla... don't believe me? Ask funkyou...

About posting bugs, pierre said all there is to say

Llama · 2008-11-04 09:30:46

From the bug tracker (bug 163):

funkyou: thanks for the feedback, we will keep the patch until it is fixed in KDE

Why this, then?

Pierre · 2008-11-04 10:27:39

Rasi wrote:

Llama wrote:
KDEmod is very advisable. Vanilla KDE4 is unbearably buggy at present; the KDEmod team's been doing an excellent job of fixing the showstopper bugs.
Sorry to disappoint you, but kdemod is totally vanilla... don't believe me? Ask funkyou...
About posting bugs, pierre said all there is to say

OK, the add less patches than they did for kdemod3, but they do: http://kdemod.ath.cx/svn/branches/kde41 … SPLITBUILD

But please, don't let us start a useless flameware. KDE from [extra] is as vanilla as possible; KDEmod is splitted up and has some more patches applied.

Sometimes I think if it wouldn't be more effective to help adding splitting support to makepkg and devtools. :-) (of course only if splitted packages is the main intention of kdemod)

PS: Just to make sure noone gets me wrong: I rally like and support community efforts like the on of kdemod devs. I am just sick of rantings about KDE and "all its bugs" etc.. This thread wasn't the first one. So I hope you understand my emotional reactions here.

Last edited by Pierre (2008-11-04 10:55:49)

Llama · 2008-11-04 10:56:15

No harm intended... But even an odd fix makes a lot of difference, if it scratches right where it itches.

Rasi · 2008-11-04 23:17:42

Pierre wrote:

Sometimes I think if it wouldn't be more effective to help adding splitting support to makepkg and devtools. :-) (of course only if splitted packages is the main intention of kdemod)

If i am not mistaken funkyou tried to get splitting into makepkg, but it was rejected.

Last edited by Rasi (2008-11-04 23:18:43)

Pierre · 2008-11-04 23:29:32

Well, I haven't chekd that; but if a patch was rejected there were reasons. Splitting support itself is welcome: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-d … 12816.html

Llama · 2008-11-05 15:04:33

Well, I haven't chekd that; but if a patch was rejected there were reasons.

Reasons? I'm mighty curious about those reasons. 163 isn't just your garden variety bug: it's a pedigree bug, imported in its entirety from KDE 3. The bug is as old as the idea of automounting, if not as old as KDE itself .

Besides, it's the single most annoying KDE bug for any multilingual user.

...

Ah, sorry. It's all about a different patch ... Though I'm still curious why bug 163 must live forever.

Last edited by Llama (2008-11-05 15:14:46)

psilo357 · 2008-11-12 02:26:33

went ahead an did a reinstall, since i was having many problems with dbus/hal on round 1. Installed kdemod, got everything working, and it is pretty nice. there is some instability with plasma however, i found whenever I shrink the panel smaller than the bottom of the screen, it crashes, then will continue to crash everytime you boot, I had to blow away all of my config just to boot again.

Anyway, its pretty nice, but kdemod4 is not all that much different than kde4, nothing like what they did with kde 3.5, which i do hope they get to that point one day. Trying out lxde now actually, and im really digging it, though im not huge on being minimal, considering I have a quad core xeon processor and 4 gigs of ram and a good graphics card, may as well put them to use.

I don't like the little quarter circle thing in the top right either, kde4 is just so much different than the wonderful 3.5 was. Seems a lot less controllable, and not very stable, but its still newish, so will improve im sure.

peace

tanis · 2008-11-12 03:50:49

@Pierre: Do you know what happened with that split packages effort? All those posts in the ML are from August - any new recently?
I have read threads from June and August and I really really like some ideas. I'm not a dev or TU, but is there a way to help push that further?

Chrysalis · 2008-11-12 06:56:33

psilo357 wrote:

I don't like the little quarter circle thing in the top right either, kde4 is just so much different than the wonderful 3.5 was. Seems a lot less controllable, and not very stable, but its still newish, so will improve im sure.

kdemod has desktop icons 'folder view' ported, go to desktop settings and chose 'plain desktop' to get rid of the plasma icon if you dont like it.

For those still wondering about differences between kde and kdemod, heres a post from funkyou...
http://kdemod.ath.cx/bbs/viewtopic.php?id=1250

funkyou wrote:

The differences between the KDE/Qt packages in [extra] and ours are pretty straight:
- there are some plasma backports (tooltips, notifications, panel hiding, desktop icons ...), directly from trunk or pulled from other distros and modified for our needs.
- also some apps like like ark and kscd got backported, and the kwin cube plugin too.
- we have some more service menus in our default set of pkgs
- qtmod uses only qt-copy patches for xorg/linux etc while the qt package in extra has all of these patches applied, whether they are needed or not
- and at last: everything is compiled with some optional cflags for intel core2 cpus, but it doesnt affect other cpus

These are some nice extra touches, especially folder view (desktop icons) and panel autohiding those can be a huge deal for some people. Also, theres some extra apps and themes (bespin rocks) in their extragear and playground repos to play with or keep up with development (koffice2, amarok2, kursader2 etc) untill they make it in the arch repos. Their buildsystem is pretty neat aswell.

It has its downsides also... not officially supported, like for example it can take longer for releases or to react to changes in arch repos that brake things, small community. Patching is a double-edged sword too, some are useful and some are buggy.

For people who dont want split packages... vanilla kde, officially supported and in extra should suffice.

Last edited by Chrysalis (2008-11-12 07:15:29)

Pierre · 2008-11-12 10:04:15

@tanis: I have no information about splitting support in pacman. But if you would like to support its development it would be best to ask at the pacman-dev mailing list.

@Chrysalis: Just a sidenote: funkyou is just wrong about the difference between qt and qtmod.

Chrysalis · 2008-11-12 19:42:34

Pierre wrote:

@Chrysalis: Just a sidenote: funkyou is just wrong about the difference between qt and qtmod.

I am not trying to start a flamewar, but can we hear your side of the story then to get the facts straight?

tanis · 2008-11-13 02:43:49

Chrysalis wrote:

I am not trying to start a flamewar, but can we hear your side of the story then to get the facts straight?

There are no "sides of the story". Pierre does great job packaging qt and kde and I don't think he needs to prove anything here.
But how about you check for yourself? Actually I just did. The difference between qt and qtmod is in 3 patches - qtmod has 2 small patches that official qt doesn't have.
On the other hand official qt has one patch for a bug that was resolved just a week ago which qtmod is missing.

Also, submitting and resolving bugs should be done upstream if possible.
Pointing to kdemod's bugtracker while proving that official KDE packages have bugs doesn't make any sense.
How about sending bugreport to official KDE's bugtracker? Or maybe developers of KDE, and (of course) developers of Arch should monitor kdemod's
bugtracker as well? And of course Ubuntu's. And one for OpenSuse. And I guess there are some more distributions and bugtrackers that should be monitored as well?

Last edited by tanis (2008-11-13 02:47:01)

Chrysalis · 2008-11-13 04:43:19

Calm down, its common courtesy to try to explain when you disagree with something. I am not doubting pierre's work (he does a great job)... I just tried to summarize the differences with kdemod for people reading this thread (and for me).

Last edited by Chrysalis (2008-11-13 04:47:04)

Pierre · 2008-11-15 07:48:54

There is no need for a flamewar. Just use diff and see yourself.

funkyou · 2008-11-19 16:47:20

Just to clear up some things...

Llama wrote:

In the KDEmod bug tracker, where else? Specifically, bug 163: it's my personal showstopper .

Pierre wrote:

This is fixed upstream (where it belongs and not somewhere in the bugtracker of kdemod or ubuntu where neither me or the kde devs will have a look).

Llama wrote:

From the bug tracker (bug 163):
funkyou: thanks for the feedback, we will keep the patch until it is fixed in KDE
Why this, then?

There was already a bug filed at kde.org and launchpad.net. We just took the patch and applied it until it got submitted upstream (took 2-3 weeks iirc).

Oh, and i surely check upstream whenever someone files a bug at kdemod, and i think every other KDE packager does the same

Pierre wrote:

(of course only if splitted packages is the main intention of kdemod)

Split packages are the main intention, and any extra stuff is purely optional unlike our KDE3 pkgs. It was just too tempting to see all the cool features from 4.2, so we patched a little bit I guess with 4.2 we will stop adding features from trunk, but just add some fixes if they are needed and a little unflashy branding here and there.

Oh, and as splitting Qt into more packages is just pure fail (like kontact depending on Qt Designer), i guess we will remove Qtmod with 4.2 too and use the package from extra...

Chrysalis wrote:

For those still wondering about differences between kde and kdemod, heres a post from funkyou...
http://kdemod.ath.cx/bbs/viewtopic.php?id=1250
funkyou wrote:
The differences between the KDE/Qt packages in [extra] and ours are pretty straight:
...
- qtmod uses only qt-copy patches for xorg/linux etc while the qt package in extra has all of these patches applied, whether they are needed or not
...

Pierre wrote:

@Chrysalis: Just a sidenote: funkyou is just wrong about the difference between qt and qtmod.

Yes, this statement was based on outdated information, sorry

tanis wrote:

Also, submitting and resolving bugs should be done upstream if possible.
Pointing to kdemod's bugtracker while proving that official KDE packages have bugs doesn't make any sense.
How about sending bugreport to official KDE's bugtracker? Or maybe developers of KDE, and (of course) developers of Arch should monitor kdemod's
bugtracker as well? And of course Ubuntu's. And one for OpenSuse. And I guess there are some more distributions and bugtrackers that should be monitored as well?

Imho you should always report any bug on your distros/projects bugtracker, to rule out distro-specific stuff... Package maintainers are quite intelligent nowadays, so they will check upstream for sure and report if necessary

Arch Linux

#1 2008-11-03 02:34:39

[SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#2 2008-11-03 02:58:15

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#3 2008-11-03 17:45:51

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#4 2008-11-04 01:51:22

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#5 2008-11-04 05:18:56

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#6 2008-11-04 08:24:36

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#7 2008-11-04 08:39:39

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#8 2008-11-04 09:02:33

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#9 2008-11-04 09:22:09

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#10 2008-11-04 09:28:59

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#11 2008-11-04 09:30:46

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#12 2008-11-04 10:27:39

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#13 2008-11-04 10:56:15

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#14 2008-11-04 23:17:42

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#15 2008-11-04 23:29:32

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#16 2008-11-05 15:04:33

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#17 2008-11-12 02:26:33

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#18 2008-11-12 03:50:49

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#19 2008-11-12 06:56:33

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#20 2008-11-12 10:04:15

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#21 2008-11-12 19:42:34

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#22 2008-11-13 02:43:49

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#23 2008-11-13 04:43:19

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#24 2008-11-15 07:48:54

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

#25 2008-11-19 16:47:20

Re: [SOLVED] Quick KDE help

Board footer