From: Darian Lanx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Martin Costabel wrote:
D. H=F6hn wrote:
I do not quite understand why. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not
completely opposed, I just do not get why. We are good at something,
which is packaging Unix based applications.
The underlying technology is suitable for packaging pretty much anything that is built from source code. Obviously, we should restrict ourselves to only (publicly) packaging packages that build from REDISTRIBUTABLE source code, but it's not clear to me that it makes sense to restrict ourselves to packages that display their graphics through X11 rather than Aqua. Note that we don't have similar taboos against using any other frameworks – cdrtools uses the DiscRecording framework, which is about as MacOS X specific as it gets, and many packages are using CoreFoundation or even Cocoa/Carbon.
tThere is a saying in german "Schuster bleib bei deinen Leisten" which
means as much as "Stick to what you are good at". I would suggest, tha=we leave the .app handling to others and concentrate on improving fink
To "others" like Ben Reed or what? Nobody is forced to make app bundles=
out of their fink packages. But there are app bundles that would greatly
enrich fink if they were available as fink packages
Why? Why would that enrich Fink? In what way?
Aqua based OpenOffice apps, for instance, or .app bundles for SDL based apps. Could you explain in what way NOT allowing .app bundle packages enriches fink currently?
itself as well as its packages. I really do not mind downloading KDE/QTMac from somewhere else. Rather than having calssic KDE/QT plus KDE/QTMac in Fink.
My primary reason for starting to use fink was that I did not want to figure out how to install (pre-Apple) xfree86 and TeX/Metafont. Each package we add (as long as it does not corrupt our core vision, which is what we're discussing here) will attract further users.
But I do mind. Why should I start reading web pages with long lists of instructions on what to download from where and to install first in /opt and /usr/local and then download something else and start compiling with
autoconf and glibtoolize and whatever and then install in /Applications
Precisely! This is what fink is all about.
Would it not be the main purpose of an app to be bundled with a neat Installer? Or am I missing the point here?
What if the user wants to build from source?
when I could just say "fink install koffice-aqua" and let fink do its
magic? Not to mention subsequent "update-all" or "remove" commands that
you don't get from somewhere else.
What happens to the maitainer precedence then? Will the "native" app always be preffered?
That's really up to the maintainer (and nobody says that the X11 and the .app packages need to be maintained by the same maintainer).
Speaking for myself, I could imagine Trackballs migrating to an .app package and the X11 version disappearing, while nethack almost certainly would stay X11 based :-)
Why would anyone want to use KDE/X11 when they can have native KDE?
I don't think we need to pick favorites among Open Source packages (that kind of thing is best left to GNU-Darwin :-)
If native KDE runs everything that KDE/X11 does and looks good, then I see no inherent value in KDE/X11, but as long as people are interested in the latter, the KDE/X11 package will find maintainers.
Matthias
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
