At 22:45 Uhr -0400 14.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 07:17 PM, Max Horn wrote: > >>Not really. I understand what you explain above. But it doesn't >>justify packaging the .app in the first place, it only describes an >>ugly (no offense meant) way to hack around a problem that stems >>from the fact that we abuse Fink/dpkg for something it wasn't meant >>to do :-) >> >>If I write say a wrapper around wget - well, I will have to check >>for it's presence anyway, why should I tie myself to Fink ? Please >>name me some real case scenarios, and why making the .app Fink >>based there would be an advantage. I don't like discussion this >>based on purely theoretical setups. > >I know several open source apps that are distributed on sourceforge, >and the source is updated much more frequently than the binaries.
You mean they make source releases, but not binary releases? To my experience that is rather rare. > Opening the project from within projectbuilder is a pain, >especially when trying to install it. Well, yeah. So bug the program authors to make source *and* binary releases. It's not Fink's task to work around sloppy program maintainers. Or maybe they have good reasons not to release binaries, then maybe we should honor that! >I'm not saying we need to do this for every Foo.app out there, but I >have seen a few where it might make sense. Also, this method could >be used for XDarwin.app to keep it within the fink tree. Maybe even >a similar thing for XFree86. That's not really relevant for the discussion. Sure we could use "this method" for XFree86 as well, but that doesn't justify using it on other stuff. [...cut explanation on how one could abuse Fink to package .apps...] Look, the point of this discussion is *not* to find ugly ways to abuse & bend Fink/dpkg to handle this, we know it's possible to some degree, and suggestions similar to yours have been made before. Now instead of repeating this, why don't you just name a list of specific applications and tell us why it would be so important to package them with Fink? We have discussed the many reasons against doing so several times in the past, it really gets tiresome. Only because we can do something doesn't mean it is really a good thing. And only because something seems good at the first glance doesn't mean it is if you think it thru more carefully. The topic of this discussion was very specific: whether to package FC or not. To me it is completly out of question to package many .app's; only a very very few selected ones will ever be packaged in the main Fink distro, and all of those better have very strong reasons for his. >My idea for XFree86 is: > >Installscript creates a directory %p/X11R6 or something like that, >and (using the same overwrite check as currently used) places a >symlink at /usr/X11R6 to it. Then the X11 tree could be kept within >a UFS partition (case-sensitivity), Hu? What do you mean? I don't understand. > and everything else would still work. As an added bonus, that >would cause dpkg to remove the /usr/X11R6 symlink whenever >xfree86-server/rootless was removed (Even if other files, fonts, >junk, etc. were still hanging out in %p/X11R6) Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
