Alternate Installation Prefixes [Was: Re: Gnome-2.28.0 build notes -- Compatability Symlinks]

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Oct 24 08:52:36 PDT 2009


On 10/24/2009 04:30 AM, Lars Bamberger wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>    
>> This is mostly for Wayne, but anyone else working on Gnome-2.28.0, I'm
>> building in the /opt/gnome-2.28.0 prefix as opposed to /usr and thought
>> these build notes might be useful.
>>      
> Same here.
>
> On my system I created some "compatibility" symlinks:
>
> $GNOME_PREFIX/share/icons ->  /usr/share/icons
> $GNOME_PREFIX/share/pixmaps ->  /usr/share/pixmaps
> $GNOME_PREFIX/python$PYTHON_VERSION ->  /usr/lib/python$PYTHON_VERSION
> $GNOME_PREFIX/lib/gio ->  /usr/lib/gio/modules
>
> This works for me, but it might also break things as some packages might
> step on each others toes. Anyhow one might consider putting these
> instructions in the book at one time.
>
> Lars
>    
Unfortunately, it is a slow, time consuming process to validate a set of 
instructions as large as the Gnome stack.  KDE and Xorg suffer the same 
issues, but are certainly a little more forgiving than the 6 month Gnome 
release cycle.  Gnome will be a *little* more manageable with 2.30/3.0 
with art, bonobo, canvas, eel, glade, print, *ui, and all their 
dependencies gone.  However, it seems that the developers aren't really 
concerned with alternate installation prefixes, they obviously do not 
test this scenario, and the patches and 'fixes' required will continue 
to grow.  Upstreaming the patches has mixed results.

I've hinted at this suggestion before, and mulled this over for a while 
now.  I'm now suggesting that BLFS no longer support the alternate 
installation prefixes for X, Gnome, and KDE.  The alternate prefixes can 
be supported by the wiki if people are willing to commit to it.

What does everyone else think of this?

-- DJ Lucas

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.




More information about the blfs-dev mailing list