Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:43:20 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@3-cities.com> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: Clarence Brown <clabrown@granitepost.com>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: KDE2: make install 'fails' ... Message-ID: <3925EDB8.5A21AC09@3-cities.com> References: <3925A8D3.F4609B5E@3-cities.com> <002201bfc1de$64e20de0$8c6896d1@granitepost.com> <20000519182516.R42474@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Will Andrews wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:05:49PM -0400, Clarence Brown wrote: > > Well, for what it's worth I agree that switching back and forth is > > important. Certainly while KDE2 is in development. On the KDE site > > there is a page that describes the configuration for running both > > and switching back and forth. http://www.kde.org/kde1-and-kde2.html You aren't alone. If I knew how to do this, I would have sent you the diff's. During the Win 2000 betas, I would have had a second install available as a boot but I don't know how to do that in an acceptable manner with FreeBSD either. > > > > I'm not competant enough at this point to set it up, (I haven't even > > gotten the kde2 port to work yet) but it would be nice if the kde2 > > port set things up to make switching easy. > > I am sorry.. I really don't know how to make it work. Unfortunately, > kde/qt installation philosophy conflicts with our hier(7) in such a way > that it renders installing with respect to $KDEDIR and $QTDIR > impossible. :-( > > I'm still trying to find an acceptable solution for this problem. > It seems like these could be setup using a shell script. I don't know if that is possible either. This isn't the only environment where this is important. It may just be the first one where people had opinions and said something. I think XFree86-4 and 3.3.6 are another pair of candidates. If I feel that way, then there must be a couple of more that fit the need. If people want you to test their product, they should make it easy to use. What we are seeing is the unix way and people may not find that acceptable in the future :) The question is what can we do about it. BTW, I liked your idea of XFree86 broken up into useful pieces. It isn't with out bugs and adding patches or etc. should be much easier than it is currently. Downloading 30+MB of source to get a patch isn't acceptable. Broken up would make it much nicer :). Kent > -- > Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> > GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- > ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ > G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kstewart@3-cities.com http://www.3-cities.com/~kstewart/index.html FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/ SETI(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) @ HOME http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ 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?3925EDB8.5A21AC09>