I'm somewhat uncomfortable with .Applications, as that would make a potentially large directory invisible from the Finder. I agree that our objective here is to make the directory "invisible" so users don't mess with the contents, but I feel that this could be achieved through other naming means than making the directory invisible. How about /sw/lib/applications ? (I was going to suggest /sw/libexec/applications, but it turns out we don't have /sw/libexec). Fink users should be sufficiently trained not to mess with /sw/lib.
Just seemed like a good way to hide it, it really wouldn't be hard to put it somewhere else. Last night I thought maybe putting them in:
/sw/var/lib/fink/bundles/<packagename>/
Then I could get rid of the thing I'm doing to track adding/removing bundles.
Interesting idea, but is it actually worth to support resource forks in MacOS X? I've never used any in my X apps, but then, I've never written a Carbon app on X either. My understanding was that nowadays, any app can be packaged without using resource forks.
Just in case, and it doesn't really hurt anything. =)
------------------------------------------------------- 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
