Subject: Re: distcc-gtk
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Geert Hendrickx <email@example.com>
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 http://lori.mine.nu:5190/pkgsrc/distcc-gtk.tgz .
> > 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.