[gentoo-user] depclean wants to wipe out KDE3

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 20 December 2008 08:27:40 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> emerge -av --depclean:
>>
>> kde-base/kopete
>>
>> selected: 3.5.10
>>
>> protected: none
>>
>> omitted: 4.1.3
>>
>>
>> kde-base/kget
>> selected: 3.5.10
>> protected: none
>> omitted: 4.1.3
>>
>> kde-base/kmenuedit
>> selected: 3.5.10
>> protected: none
>> omitted: 4.1.3
>>
>> The list goes on. All those packages are in my world file. This only
>> started happening after installing KDE 4.1.3. Another nice effect of
>> not putting KDE4 in new portage trees but rather mixing them with KDE3?
>> What can I do?
>
> You can start by giving the relevant information, like what exactly related to
> kde is in world?. Chances are you only have KDE there, and emerge will
> probably want to nuke all but the latest SLOT. Common problems with KDE:
>
> Put 'kdeprefix' in USE and rebuild
> Put KDE:3.5 in world and recheck.
>
> This last one often needs to be redone recursively to get everything in world
> that needs to be there. I've heard that autounmask helps with this

kdeprefix has nothing to do with KDE3. It's not needed. It's only
needed to have many KDE4 versions at the same time.

I'll try the KDE:3.5 thingy. I wonder though why the heck I have to do
this. KDE4 should have been put in its own tree.

On Saturday 20 December 2008 11:53:05 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > You can start by giving the relevant information, like what exactly
> > related to kde is in world?. Chances are you only have KDE there, and
> > emerge will probably want to nuke all but the latest SLOT. Common
> > problems with KDE:
> >
> > Put 'kdeprefix' in USE and rebuild
> > Put KDE:3.5 in world and recheck.
> >
> > This last one often needs to be redone recursively to get everything in
> > world that needs to be there. I've heard that autounmask helps with this
>
> kdeprefix has nothing to do with KDE3.  It's not needed.  It's only
> needed to have many KDE4 versions at the same time.

That's not true.
With USE=-kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/
With USE=kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/kde/4.x

The net result, when co-installed with kde-3.x, is that your various *PATH
variables will always have 3 before 4 or vice-versa. Which is a major pita
trying to get 3 and 4 to co-exist. Try it sometime, and watch KDE-4 try to
read KDE-3's config and data files. Or have KDE-4 launch konqueror-4 and
always get it right every time.

There's only one sane way to install KDE on gentoo - always use SLOTs, always
put every version in it's own directory in /usr/kde/, always add the relevant
directories to PATH | LDPATH | etc at start-up. The other option is to have
one, and only one, kde version at any time.

> I'll try the KDE:3.5 thingy.  I wonder though why the heck I have to do
> this.  KDE4 should have been put in its own tree.

Well that's your opinion, you are entitled to it. The KDE devs don't agree
though, and their three of a kind trumps your two pairs. If you are going to
assert that KDE-4 SHOULD be in it's own tree, then you are going to have to
present a sane argument for why, and for why the existing decision is
incorrect. Just saying something "should be" doesn't cut the mustard in this
case.

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 20 December 2008 11:53:05 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> You can start by giving the relevant information, like what exactly
>>> related to kde is in world?. Chances are you only have KDE there, and
>>> emerge will probably want to nuke all but the latest SLOT. Common
>>> problems with KDE:
>>>
>>> Put 'kdeprefix' in USE and rebuild
>>> Put KDE:3.5 in world and recheck.
>>>
>>> This last one often needs to be redone recursively to get everything in
>>> world that needs to be there. I've heard that autounmask helps with this
>> kdeprefix has nothing to do with KDE3. It's not needed. It's only
>> needed to have many KDE4 versions at the same time.
>
> That's not true.

Yes it is.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/kde/kde4-guide.xml#doc_chap3

"This restriction does not apply to KDE 3.5 [...]. You can have a
non-kdeprefix version of KDE 4.1, KDE 3.5 and a live version of KDE
installed on the same system."

kdeprefix is *only* for multiple KDE 4 installations.


> With USE=-kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/
> With USE=kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/kde/4.x

Yes, and KDE3 is *always* installed in /usr/kde/3.5 no matter what.
Therefore, kdeprefix is totally irrelevant here.


> The net result, when co-installed with kde-3.x, is that your various *PATH
> variables will always have 3 before 4 or vice-versa. Which is a major pita
> trying to get 3 and 4 to co-exist. Try it sometime, and watch KDE-4 try to
> read KDE-3's config and data files. Or have KDE-4 launch konqueror-4 and
> always get it right every time.

Has nothing to do with kdeprefix


> There's only one sane way to install KDE on gentoo - always use SLOTs, always
> put every version in it's own directory in /usr/kde/, always add the relevant
> directories to PATH | LDPATH | etc at start-up. The other option is to have
> one, and only one, kde version at any time.

You're misinformed, I think. For the reasons above


>> I'll try the KDE:3.5 thingy. I wonder though why the heck I have to do
>> this. KDE4 should have been put in its own tree.
>
> Well that's your opinion, you are entitled to it. The KDE devs don't agree
> though, and their three of a kind trumps your two pairs. If you are going to
> assert that KDE-4 SHOULD be in it's own tree, then you are going to have to
> present a sane argument for why, and for why the existing decision is
> incorrect. Just saying something "should be" doesn't cut the mustard in this
> case.

The reason is that KDE4 is a new product and has nothing to do with KDE3
other than the name. And another reason is the problem I'm describing
in this very thread which should have not been a problem if KDE4 had its
own tree. Now I'm required to have non-straightforward voodoo performed
to get things right just because the devs made a wrong decision.

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> [...]
> The reason is that KDE4 is a new product and has nothing to do with KDE3
> other than the name. And another reason is the problem I'm describing
> in this very thread which should have not been a problem if KDE4 had its
> own tree. Now I'm required to have non-straightforward voodoo performed
> to get things right just because the devs made a wrong decision.

Another problem, this time not technical. I just don't want many of
those packages in my world file. I want to use depclean and have those
packages removed when the package that depends on them is also removed.
The depclean feature just got useless for those packages.

Anyone still thinks it was a good idea to have KDE4 use the same tree
with KDE3? This is was clearly a wrong decision.

Workarounds are welcome.

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> [...]
>> The reason is that KDE4 is a new product and has nothing to do with
>> KDE3 other than the name. And another reason is the problem I'm
>> describing in this very thread which should have not been a problem
>> if KDE4 had its own tree. Now I'm required to have
>> non-straightforward voodoo performed to get things right just because
>> the devs made a wrong decision.
>
> Another problem, this time not technical. I just don't want many of
> those packages in my world file. I want to use depclean and have
> those packages removed when the package that depends on them is also
> removed. The depclean feature just got useless for those packages.
>
> Anyone still thinks it was a good idea to have KDE4 use the same tree
> with KDE3? This is was clearly a wrong decision.
>
> Workarounds are welcome.
>
>
>

If you want to talk to the people that made that decision, the mailing
list is gentoo-user.RemoveThis@lists.gentoo.org and you subscribe by sending a
email to gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org and confirming the reply as
you did to this list. I would recommend you be very clear as to why
they made a wrong decision and get it right on the first try.

Good luck with that. Better have your ducks in a row. Since I'm
subscribed there, I get to watch. o_O

Dale

On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 06:34 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > [...]
> > The reason is that KDE4 is a new product and has nothing to do with KDE3
> > other than the name. And another reason is the problem I'm describing
> > in this very thread which should have not been a problem if KDE4 had its
> > own tree. Now I'm required to have non-straightforward voodoo performed
> > to get things right just because the devs made a wrong decision.

That's what SLOTS are fore. KDE4 is in it's own slot and can be
installed instead of/in addition to KDE 3.5. Putting a package in a
different SLOT is effectively putting it i it's own tree.

$ emerge -p kde-base/kde-meta:3.5
[...]

[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdepim-wizards-3.5.10 USE="-debug"
[ebuild N ] kde-base/karm-3.5.10 USE="-debug"
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kontact-specialdates-3.5.10 USE="-debug"
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdepim-meta-3.5.10 USE="-pda"
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kde-meta-3.5.10 USE="nls -accessibility"

$ emerge -p kde-base/kde-meta:4.1
[...]
[ebuild N ] kde-base/krunner-4.1.3 USE="opengl -debug -kdeprefix
-xcomposite -xscreensaver"
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdepim-meta-4.1.3
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdebase-startkde-4.1.3 USE="-kdeprefix"
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdebase-meta-4.1.3
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kde-meta-4.1.3 USE="-accessibility"

What kind of voodoo is that?

In the past, Gentoo devs have spend a lot of time and effort moving
split package trees under one tree (e.g. PHP). I don't see them going
backwards any time soon.

>
> Another problem, this time not technical. I just don't want many of
> those packages in my world file. I want to use depclean and have those
> packages removed when the package that depends on them is also removed.
> The depclean feature just got useless for those packages.
>

By definition, --depclean doesn't remove anything in the world file (or
its dependencies). If you want something removed don't put it in the
world file (or put something that depends on it in your world file).
*You* are the controller of your world file. Nothing gets put there
without your specifying so.

Anyone still thinks it was a good idea to have KDE4 use the same tree
> with KDE3? This is was clearly a wrong decision.
>
> Workarounds are welcome.

I don't think you need a work-around, just to understand how portage
works. A (re-)read of the man pages should help.

-a

On Saturday 20 December 2008 14:35:13 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 December 2008 11:53:05 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >>> You can start by giving the relevant information, like what exactly
> >>> related to kde is in world?. Chances are you only have KDE there, and
> >>> emerge will probably want to nuke all but the latest SLOT. Common
> >>> problems with KDE:
> >>>
> >>> Put 'kdeprefix' in USE and rebuild
> >>> Put KDE:3.5 in world and recheck.
> >>>
> >>> This last one often needs to be redone recursively to get everything in
> >>> world that needs to be there. I've heard that autounmask helps with
> >>> this
> >>
> >> kdeprefix has nothing to do with KDE3. It's not needed. It's only
> >> needed to have many KDE4 versions at the same time.
> >
> > That's not true.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/kde/kde4-guide.xml#doc_chap3
>
> "This restriction does not apply to KDE 3.5 [...]. You can have a
> non-kdeprefix version of KDE 4.1, KDE 3.5 and a live version of KDE
> installed on the same system."
>
> kdeprefix is *only* for multiple KDE 4 installations.

Now go back and read my post again. I'm not talking about what the docs are
talking about. I'm talking about kde-3* being installed into /usr/kde/3.5 and
KDE-4 being installed into /usr/ and the resulting mess that happens when you
get LDPATH, PATH and various other env vars set up wrong when you start a
session.

> > With USE=-kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/
> > With USE=kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/kde/4.x
>
> Yes, and KDE3 is *always* installed in /usr/kde/3.5 no matter what.
> Therefore, kdeprefix is totally irrelevant here.

No it is not, and you have not read my post properly. I'm not talking about
the *installation* of kde-3.5 interfering with KDE-4, I'm talking about run
time.

I'm saying that KDE-4 co-existing with kde-3.5 is so much easier if KDE-4 is
installed into /usr/kde.

> > The net result, when co-installed with kde-3.x, is that your various
> > *PATH variables will always have 3 before 4 or vice-versa. Which is a
> > major pita trying to get 3 and 4 to co-exist. Try it sometime, and watch
> > KDE-4 try to read KDE-3's config and data files. Or have KDE-4 launch
> > konqueror-4 and always get it right every time.
>
> Has nothing to do with kdeprefix

See above.

> > There's only one sane way to install KDE on gentoo - always use SLOTs,
> > always put every version in it's own directory in /usr/kde/, always add
> > the relevant directories to PATH | LDPATH | etc at start-up. The other
> > option is to have one, and only one, kde version at any time.
>
> You're misinformed, I think. For the reasons above
>
> >> I'll try the KDE:3.5 thingy. I wonder though why the heck I have to do
> >> this. KDE4 should have been put in its own tree.
> >
> > Well that's your opinion, you are entitled to it. The KDE devs don't
> > agree though, and their three of a kind trumps your two pairs. If you are
> > going to assert that KDE-4 SHOULD be in it's own tree, then you are going
> > to have to present a sane argument for why, and for why the existing
> > decision is incorrect. Just saying something "should be" doesn't cut the
> > mustard in this case.
>
> The reason is that KDE4 is a new product and has nothing to do with KDE3
> other than the name. And another reason is the problem I'm describing
> in this very thread which should have not been a problem if KDE4 had its
> own tree. Now I'm required to have non-straightforward voodoo performed
> to get things right just because the devs made a wrong decision.

It would *still* be a problem. The konqueror binary is called konqueror
on-disk in 3.5 and 4. If you don't set up the environment correctly, which
one is going to be launched?

It makes much more sense to install all versions of all DEs calling
themselves "KDE" the same way if you have two or more of them installed. If
you only have KDE-4 and do not have KDE-3*, then elect to USE kdeprefix any
way that suits your needs.

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:34:39 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
>> Another problem, this time not technical. I just don't want many of
>> those packages in my world file. I want to use depclean and have those
>> packages removed when the package that depends on them is also removed.
>> The depclean feature just got useless for those packages.
>
> That's incorrect. You only need the packages you use in world, portage is
> clever enough to figure out which dependencies are needed by 3.5 packages.

But it wants to unmerge these for example:

kde-base/kate
kde-base/kdebase-startkde
kde-base/ksmserver

These were dependencies and therefore were not in my world file. If
they get unmerge, things will break. KDevelop will break without Kate,
and KDE 3.5 itself will break without the other two.

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> kde-base/kate
> kde-base/kdebase-startkde
> kde-base/ksmserver
>
> These were dependencies and therefore were not in my world file. If
> they get unmerge, things will break. KDevelop will break without Kate,
> and KDE 3.5 itself will break without the other two.

OK, now I'm really curious; turns out they are NOT dependencies I
just checked with equery and nothing depends on them. Is that normal?
I mean, startkde for example is crucial to even start KDE 3 and it's not
a dependency?

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 20 December 2008 14:35:13 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On Saturday 20 December 2008 11:53:05 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>> kdeprefix has nothing to do with KDE3. It's not needed. It's only
>>>> needed to have many KDE4 versions at the same time.
>>> That's not true.
>> Yes it is.
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/kde/kde4-guide.xml#doc_chap3
>>
>> "This restriction does not apply to KDE 3.5 [...]. You can have a
>> non-kdeprefix version of KDE 4.1, KDE 3.5 and a live version of KDE
>> installed on the same system."
>>
>> kdeprefix is *only* for multiple KDE 4 installations.
>
> Now go back and read my post again. I'm not talking about what the docs are
> talking about. I'm talking about kde-3* being installed into /usr/kde/3.5 and
> KDE-4 being installed into /usr/ and the resulting mess that happens when you
> get LDPATH, PATH and various other env vars set up wrong when you start a
> session.

And how is putting KDE4 in /usr/kde going to help in this? What
difference does it make if the wrong path is chosen? Surely, it doesn't
matter a bit how that path looks like if it's wrong. If a KDE4 path
would come before a KDE3 path in a KDE3 session, the last thing you care
about is whether that path is /usr/bin or /usr/kde/4.1/bin.

And anyway, starting KDE3 puts the KDE3 paths first. Starting KDE4 puts
the KDE4 paths first. And you don't need kdeprefix to get that behavior.


>>> With USE=-kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/
>>> With USE=kdeprefix, KDE4 is installed into /usr/kde/4.x
>> Yes, and KDE3 is *always* installed in /usr/kde/3.5 no matter what.
>> Therefore, kdeprefix is totally irrelevant here.
>
> No it is not, and you have not read my post properly. I'm not talking about
> the *installation* of kde-3.5 interfering with KDE-4, I'm talking about run
> time.
>
> I'm saying that KDE-4 co-existing with kde-3.5 is so much easier if KDE-4 is
> installed into /usr/kde.

Doesn't look any easier to me.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 02:18:27AM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos Chantziaras squawked:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> kde-base/kate
>> kde-base/kdebase-startkde
>> kde-base/ksmserver
>> These were dependencies and therefore were not in my world file. If they
>> get unmerge, things will break. KDevelop will break without Kate, and KDE
>> 3.5 itself will break without the other two.
>
> OK, now I'm really curious; turns out they are NOT dependencies I just
> checked with equery and nothing depends on them. Is that normal? I mean,
> startkde for example is crucial to even start KDE 3 and it's not a
> dependency?

Hum, that is bizarre. I just tried emerge -pvt kde-meta, and it shows
that kde-meta depends on kdebase-meta depends on kdebase-startkde
(all version 3.5.9)

Checking all the ebuilds currently in the tree (versions 3.5.9,
3.5.10, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3), shows that all versions of kdebase-meta
depend on their corresponding versions of kdebase-startkde (they all
contain the line

>=kde-base/kdebase-startkde-${PV}:${SLOT}

which picks the right slot). So something is probably broken on your
system. Check the contents of the various ebuilds for the versions you
installed to see what's wrong.

W

--
"For the relative problem is one in which the relative radius vectors...from
one to the other? So, actually, I was wrong. Kepler was right after all."
~DeathMech, S. Sondhi. P-town PHY 205
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 745 days, 44 min

Willie Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 02:18:27AM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos Chantziaras squawked:
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> kde-base/kate
>>> kde-base/kdebase-startkde
>>> kde-base/ksmserver
>>> These were dependencies and therefore were not in my world file. If they
>>> get unmerge, things will break. KDevelop will break without Kate, and KDE
>>> 3.5 itself will break without the other two.
>> OK, now I'm really curious; turns out they are NOT dependencies I just
>> checked with equery and nothing depends on them. Is that normal? I mean,
>> startkde for example is crucial to even start KDE 3 and it's not a
>> dependency?
>
> Hum, that is bizarre. I just tried emerge -pvt kde-meta, and it shows
> that kde-meta depends on kdebase-meta depends on kdebase-startkde
> (all version 3.5.9)
>
> Checking all the ebuilds currently in the tree (versions 3.5.9,
> 3.5.10, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3), shows that all versions of kdebase-meta
> depend on their corresponding versions of kdebase-startkde (they all
> contain the line
>
> >=kde-base/kdebase-startkde-${PV}:${SLOT}
>
> which picks the right slot). So something is probably broken on your
> system. Check the contents of the various ebuilds for the versions you
> installed to see what's wrong.

I'm not using -meta packages. Many packages they pulled in was stuff I
don't wanted (like PIM). I emerged KDE packages one-by-one and went
with what got pulled in as dependencies.

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Willie Wong wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 02:18:27AM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos
>> Chantziaras squawked:
>>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>> kde-base/kate
>>>> kde-base/kdebase-startkde
>>>> kde-base/ksmserver
>>>> These were dependencies and therefore were not in my world file.
>>>> If they get unmerge, things will break. KDevelop will break
>>>> without Kate, and KDE 3.5 itself will break without the other two.
>>> OK, now I'm really curious; turns out they are NOT dependencies
>>> I just checked with equery and nothing depends on them. Is that
>>> normal? I mean, startkde for example is crucial to even start KDE 3
>>> and it's not a dependency?
>>
>> Hum, that is bizarre. I just tried emerge -pvt kde-meta, and it shows
>> that kde-meta depends on kdebase-meta depends on kdebase-startkde
>> (all version 3.5.9)
>>
>> Checking all the ebuilds currently in the tree (versions 3.5.9,
>> 3.5.10, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3), shows that all versions of kdebase-meta
>> depend on their corresponding versions of kdebase-startkde (they all
>> contain the line
>> >=kde-base/kdebase-startkde-${PV}:${SLOT}
>>
>> which picks the right slot). So something is probably broken on your
>> system. Check the contents of the various ebuilds for the versions you
>> installed to see what's wrong.
>
> I'm not using -meta packages. Many packages they pulled in was stuff
> I don't wanted (like PIM). I emerged KDE packages one-by-one and went
> with what got pulled in as dependencies.
>
>
>
If he is going to use KDE as his GUI, doesn't he need to start with at
least kdebase then add onto that? On my system, kdebase brings in
startkde. If he emerges that and it gets added to the world file, would
that help with the current problem?

I only use KDE here but from what I have read you can install Konqueror
and still use some other GUI without KDE being installed and possibly no
startkde. Could this be "confusing" portage into thinking he is doing
this? Maybe?

Dale