On Saturday 28 November 2009 19:42:33 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 21:32:28 Mick wrote:
> > > I suppose one could make several useful -meta packages DEPEND on kate,
> > > as many users want kate and do not want the entire kdesdk package. But
> > > that causes the same app to appear in more than one -meta package and
> > > the devs seem to want to avoid that - there is a strict one-to-one
> > > mapping between what the -meta packages install and what is shipped in
> > > the upstream tarballs by KDE
> >
> > Sorry I'm being rather dense with this ... are you saying that the
> > DEPENDs listed when you run 'equery depends -a kate' are different to
> > mine because you  are running KDE4 from KDE-testing overlay, while I am
> > running stable portage?
> 
> No, the contents of the -meta packages are pretty much the same between the
> overlay and the official tree (apart from new apps added in the latest KDE
> snapshots, and other minor things that get dropped in the new branch of
> course).
> 
> The kde-testing overlay provides a collection of sets which the portage
>  tree does not do. The main set explicitly includes kate because it's part
>  of kdesdk and it's a bit rich to expect all users to install the entire
>  dev suite just to get a gui text editor.
> 
> The official tree has the same situation:
> 
> # grep kate /var/portage/kde-base/*-meta*/*4.3.3.ebuild
> /var/portage/kde-base/kde-meta/kde-meta-4.3.3.ebuild:   $(add_kdebase_dep
> kate)
> /var/portage/kde-base/kdesdk-meta/kdesdk-meta-4.3.3.ebuild:
> $(add_kdebase_dep kate)
> 
> # cat /var/portage/kde-base/kde-meta/kde-meta-4.3.3.ebuild
> ...
> RDEPEND="
>         $(add_kdebase_dep kate)
>         $(add_kdebase_dep kdeadmin-meta)
> ...
> 
> To give kate to users, it was added to kde-meta, and it's the only explicit
> DEPEND in the ebuild, everything else is the smaller -meta packages.
> 
> To get kate, you must do one of:
> 1. emerge kde-meta (or the @kde set)
> 2. emerge kdesdk (or the @kdesdk set)
> 3. emerge kate

Thank you kindly for persevering - the logic is clear to me now.  :-)

-- 
Regards,
Mick

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to