[kde-discuss] Bulding KDE4 - various issues

[Michael Schuster]

Lukas Oboril wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM, David Finberg <David.Finberg at sun.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Lukas Oboril wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>  1) STDCXX doesn't properly deal with the compilers not being in
>>>>  /opt/SUNWspro, it does some header file mucking and moving based off of
>>>>  /opt/SUNWspro/prod/include  and screws up for a non-default comiler.
>>>>  Check the Solaris directory for the offender.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's quite hard handling with each possibilities for compiler path. I
>>> would try to
>>> fix that in next version of CBE. (KBE will be merge into CBE)
>>>
>>  There's a hard path to /opt/SUNWspro in one of the configure scripts, if
>> that could be changed to dirname $(CC) it might just work.  Or maybe not.
>>
>>
> 
> I'm planing something like that for next version of CBE (which will
> replace KBE). Next relase should be within one month.

ah .. hmm.

Last time I went through a compile cycle of KBE on Sparc (I never manage to 
continue much further before job-life kicks in, but that's a different 
story ...), I had the impression that it worked - I believe the result of 
that compile cycle is still available on bionicmutton ;-)

As much as I admire and expect continuous improvement not only of KDE 
itself but also of the infrastructure (ie things like KBE - and I believe 
Luc has done a terrific job!), I wouldn't expect that to happen in the 
"mainstream", as it were. As it is, because KBE is frequently changing 
under our pants, I think people are having a hard time keeping up and 
working on K*D*E - and remember, that's what we are trying to get done!

I'd advocate for a fairly stable (or "known good") release of KBE at a 
point in time that's not too far in the future (like yesterday ;-), and any 
further development in a branch/fork/sandbox, that only gets pushed back when
a) it shows so much benefit that it outweighs the inconvenience
   or
b) we have a serious problem with the existing KBE that a simple patch(*) 
cannot address.

regards
Michael

*) I know, I'm not defining what that is :-)

PS: if you get the impression that I'm repeating myself, that's probably 
because I am.
-- 
Michael Schuster 	http://blogs.sun.com/recursion
Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'