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

DJ Lucas dj at
Sat Oct 24 12:00:14 PDT 2009

On 10/24/2009 11:20 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> 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.
<Snip comments by Randy, Guy, Bruce, and Ken>

OK, I think Guy and Ken see my point WRT Gnome.  I honestly don't know 
about KDE, and X really isn't a big's the packages that don't 
want to use pkgconfig to find X.  Gnome specifically is a pain.  For 
instance, I'm now getting the gvfs issue (Computer: Trash:///, etc...), 
this problem only existed in previous 2.26.3 because of a lack of gvfs.  
After reading Lars's message about the symlinks, I now know the problem 
without having put any time into solving it, but hacking up the 
autotools scripts will be a pain.  Though I haven't given him time to  
comment yet, I'd be willing to bet that Wayne has no issue with the 
icons on a /usr only installation.

My point is, that with the hacks that are being used to make Gnome work 
in /opt, there are a lot of items that should be separated that are 
not...and even in modifying other packages (udev and hal)....though 
there may be ways around that.  Anyway, I'm due for a rebuild as I had 
inadvertently used SVN instead of 6.4 on my test partition, and Xorg-7.5 
(mostly) and Gnome 2.28.1 are out.  Curiosity, what is the probability 
of LFS-6.5 or LFS-7.0 before a BLFS release?  I'm guessing pretty high 
if LFS avoids multi-lib for this release.

-- 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