On Freitag 12 Juni 2009, Alex Alexander wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 23:07, Volker Armin > > Hemmann<volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > please explain me why this option is bad? > > > > I can give you examples why it is good: > > -you can have multiple versions of kde installed (well, you could in the > > past, until someone started to put crap into python's directories). > > and > > Its not that simple > KDE wasn't designed to work like this, kdeprefix is a Gentoo Thing > that is not supported by upstream.
Do I need to remind you that kde's own documentation once said that you should install into /opt? into its own directory? Maybe that changed, but the 'not designed for' is not correct. > > Multiple issues can arise when using kdeprefix, things not working, > misc kde4 apps linking to wrong kde4 versions, etc. and without prefix, you can not have multiple versions. hmmm... > > If you know what you're doing (and how to fix stuff when it breaks ;) > kdeprefix can be useful. But its primarily meant for developers who > want to test newer kde versions. Most users should stick to -kdeprefix > which is widely tested and its upgrade path is cleaner and thoroughly > checked before each release. I give you an example: KDe 3.4 is installed, you want to try 3.5, you install it and switch when you are ready. After an hour you realize that 3.5.0 is very buggy, no problem, you just log in back to 3.4. ... Now, tell me, is that usefull for users or not? And until recently it was the default. > > imho its better to just keep binary packages of stuff you've installed. > if your update fails and you need your system asap, you just emerge > your binaries back in no time :) no cp'ing or other strange > out-of-portage stuff binary packages don't help you with your config changes or ither stuff you put into the tree.
