On Wednesday 30 May 2001 17:33, Rob Kaper wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 04:05:09PM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> > I guess we could solve this by saying that kdesupport is for SOURCE users
> > only, and that packagers should grab the original things, and *never*
> > package kdesupport itself.
> >
> > Well, that's just like qt-copy. For source user's convenience only, not
> > for packaging. I vote for going that way then. Ok for adding new libs to
> > kdesupport, but forbidden to package them ;)
>
> Nice summary and I agree.
Yes, /me as well, but not with you :-}

> My proposal:
>
> We should change kdesupport in such a way that it only contains a README
> and the source tarballs (perhaps extracted) and _no_ Makefile.cvs and all
> that crap.
?!?? Why that? It is *much* easier to compile all at one with Makefile.cvs - 
and no, it's not really crap! We don't have anything better :}

> kdesupport is _not_ to be compiled as a whole, it's a container for these
> packages only. Alternatively, we keep them all in one location on the FTP
> servers. I think most of us agree that we should remove
> kdesupport-the-compilable-module but we want to continue providing the
> sources of packages we depend on.
No! I don't, I'd like to have it in cvs 'cause I *never* use ftp.kde.org.

> I will change the configure.in.bot's messages to phrase something like
> this:
>
> You do not have package X installed. It is required because it is used for
> [task]. Please install X before continuing KDE compilation. If your
> distribution does not provide a binary package for X then you can download
> it from [homepage] and compile it yourself. The kdesupport package/ftpdir
> provides a copy of the source tarballs of most packages for convenience.
Well, this one seems to be rather ok :-)

Ciao,
  Michael

-- 

       Some operating systems are called `user friendly',
             Linux however is `expert friendly'.