Message: previous - next
Month: February 2014

Re: [trinity-devel] Commit c926c513 (amarok) caused a conflict between packages

From: "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:02:24 -0600
On 02/14/2014 02:05 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
> I moved the icons in question because there were no icons 
> populating the former kcontrol protocols module and the help 
> handbook table of contents.
> We have discussed this issue before. The agreed preferred solution 
> is remove the duplicate icons from the sources. Fiddling around in 
> the build scripts is always a jerk-round solution. For example, the 
> amarok sources is the correct location for amarok icons, not 
> tdelibs, tdebase, tdeaddons, or where ever.
> The icons should not be deleted blindly. In a previous discussion I 
> mentioned the tdeaddon icons for kbabel were better because they 
> are more global in appearance while the icons in tdesdk are U.S.-
> centric. In that case, move the tdeaddon kbabel icons and overwrite 
> the tdesdk kbabel icons.
> Darrell

No complaints about any of that. The removals I have are the result of those
discussions over the past 3 years. That's why I keep the tdeaddons kbabel and
delete the tdesdk kbabel icons.

The only concern this exercise raised for me is the preference I currently give
to the protocol files from tde-snv over those from tdesdk. I think the correct
approach would be to keep the tdesdk verisons of the protocols and remove the
conflicting protocols from tde-svn. However, if I recall correctly, there was
the suggestion that the tde-svn protocol files were newer than those from tdesdk
and contained more translations.

The concern with Amarok icons I have is -- they do not conflict with anything as
long as they are in /opt/trinity/share/apps/amarok/icons. Therefore, they should
be left there. If those icons do conflict with some other Debian/Ubuntu non-tde
package -- then fix that package and don't mess with the TDE tree.

David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.