Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#40161 - [baloo] separate package so that indexing functionality can be removed without breaking KDE

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Paolo (palmaway) - Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 17:20 GMT
Last edited by Andrea Scarpino (BaSh) - Friday, 02 May 2014, 09:30 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Andrea Scarpino (BaSh)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 6
Private No

Details

The new baloo desktop search/indexing tool (that replaces nepomuk) has brought in a number of new "features", among which the inability to disable it from the user interface. A KDE bug file asking for the option for disabling indexing to be put back (https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331932) was created. However, the main developer of the project has stated both there and on his blog (http://vhanda.in/blog/2014/04/desktop-search-configuration/) that the current policy is to "ask distros to split the baloo package to the point where it can easily be uninstalled without breaking functionality."

Currently, this is not possible with Archlinux, as the 'baloo' package is required by 'kactivities' (and therefore 'kdebase-runtime'), 'kdegraphics-gwenview' and 'kdepim-libkdepim'. It is however possible to split the package into a library package, that provides the functionalities needed by the dependent packages, and a removable indexing-tools only package. OpenSuse has been cited by the developer of baloo as an example. Can the mantainer please split the package as such?
This task depends upon

Closed by  Andrea Scarpino (BaSh)
Friday, 02 May 2014, 09:30 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  add it to pacman's NoExtract
Comment by patrick (potomac) - Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 17:42 GMT
this is an excellent idea,

baloo should be an optional package, as long as this package can trigger serious lags on modest PC configuration ( hard disk and not SSD, slow CPU )
Comment by Pierre Schmitz (Pierre) - Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 18:42 GMT
This is a very wrong approach imho. It should be possible to enable and disable a at runtime and not by uninstalling a package. How would this work on a multi user system where some sers want a file index and some don't?

It could make sense to split baloo into separate package if we can save users from installing a lot of (big) dependencies.
Comment by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 20:07 GMT
Reminds me of tracker... at first we split up tracker to make it optional, and then after a while applications demand tracker and crash if it isn't installed...

It's just too bad these projects can't come to a standard... now we have nepomuk, baloo and tracker. If you're unlucky with your application choice, you'll end up indexing your files by 3 daemons doing the same job.
Comment by Andrea Scarpino (BaSh) - Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 20:33 GMT
-1 for this.

Blame upstream for shipping it in a single package. If you really want to go ahead with this you should put a fake-baloo package on AUR which provides 'baloo' package and only install its libraries.
Comment by Paolo (palmaway) - Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 20:49 GMT
Guys, I do agree that the developers should provide a clear way of disabling baloo on a user basis from the system settings window. But for now they seem to stick to their idea...
I just posted a link to this in the upstream bug (https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331932).

By the way, the main developer (Vishesh Handa) seems to be an Archlinux user too (username: vhanda).
Comment by Andrea Scarpino (BaSh) - Wednesday, 30 April 2014, 20:54 GMT
You know, we use to ship vanilla software; they provide a single tarball, so we do.

Loading...