Subject: Re: distcc-gtk
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <>
From: Geert Hendrickx <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/13/2005 19:34:19
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 07:02:48PM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 18:14 +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> > Hello guys, 
> > 
> > devel/distcc installs distccmon-text, a text-based monitor for distcc
> > activities.  There's also --enable-gtk which additionally creates an
> > analogue distccmon-gnome (doesn't require Gnome though), and I've
> > created a package for it: distcc-gtk.  I have splitted the existing
> > devel/distcc/ Makefile into Makefile and Makefile.common, to base
> > distcc-gtk on the existing package.  Could you please test both
> > packages?  
> > 
> > They're at .  
> > 
> > The only difference between them should be the distccmon-gnome binary, +
> > an icon and .desktop file for it.  
> > 
> > One problem still: the -gtk package doesn't install the rc.d script for
> > distcc, because it has no files/ directory.  How should I fix this?  
> You'd set FILESDIR to point to distcc/files.  But wait...

Nice, thanks!  And for patches?  PATCHESDIR?  

> You'd probably do this in a slightly different manner.  Instead of
> making distcc-gtk include _everything_ that is already in distcc, change
> it to provide the new frontend plus the icon plus the desktop file only.
> Then, add a dependency on distcc.  This way the two packages will not
> conflict (and will hopefully be easier to manage).

I've been thinking about this, too.  But I opted for the conflicting
packages because they both compile from the same source tarball, just
with different ./configure options.  Much like mozilla vs mozilla-gtk2.  
Distilling the gtk frontend would probably require more work.  

That's just my opinion, of course.