Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
* Jeff Teunissen [Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:52:37 -0400]: What DOES bug me is mindlessly adding gnustep- to the names of all packages that use it, because most of the developers of those packages have dick to do with some mythical GNUstep desktop, which itself does not exist. but note that adding gnustep- or gstep- as prefix to these packages is/was (from what I've seen so far): (a) the preferred solution by a high majority of DD, as to what benefits most to archive namespace clutter. *and* (b) what can be regarded as most useful for our users (I, at lest, think it is, and some other people will as well, I hope). In addition to Debian and QuakeForge, I'm involved in a project to create a user environment that happens to use the GNUstep libraries. That project is called Backbone, and most of what we have done so far is included in Debian (the packages preferences.app, terminal.app, and textedit.app). We're not GNUstep. One of us is also a member of the GNUstep project, but that's not particularly relevant. but there must be a close relationship to GNUstep when you have: preferences - GNUstep Preferences application terminal - Terminal Emulator for GNUstep textedit.app - Basic text editor for GNUstep Why should packages that are part of the Backbone desktop (I use quotes because putting a desktop on the root menu makes no sense from our perspective), or packages that are simply useful (or not) programs that use the GNUstep libraries, be advertised as being GNUstep programs? That's silly. see above. I'd rather see: gstep-preferences - GNUstep Preferences application from the Backbone project gstep-terminal - Terminal Emulator for GNUstep from the Backbone project gstep-textedit - Basic text editor for GNUstep from the Backbone project what I fail to see is the reluctance to put gstep- in the name *of* *the* *Debian* *package* when (a) GNUstep is already there in the short description *and* (b) is what most other members of the project has been asking for. [btw, the mail I'm replying to is the *first* (that I can find) containing the Backbone word. if this had been mentioned earlier, I'm sure it would had made people happier packages with names like backbone-$whatever or $whatever-backbone that the current $foo.app.] enlightenment appreciated, -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Adeodato Simó wrote: * Jeff Teunissen [Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:52:37 -0400]: What DOES bug me is mindlessly adding gnustep- to the names of all packages that use it, because most of the developers of those packages have dick to do with some mythical GNUstep desktop, which itself does not exist. but note that adding gnustep- or gstep- as prefix to these packages is/was (from what I've seen so far): (a) the preferred solution by a high majority of DD, as to what benefits most to archive namespace clutter. I've only seen a few highly-vocal people whenever this comes up, and this suggests to me that few people even /care/ -- but those few that do are in violent disagreement. (b) what can be regarded as most useful for our users (I, at lest, think it is, and some other people will as well, I hope). I don't really see how it's useful -- it doesn't matter what libs are used by an app. Why should, for example, TalkSoup (an IRC client) be called g[nu]step-talksoup? It's the only program with that name, it's not generic, it's not part of the GNUstep project, and it's not even written by a member of the GNUstep project. It has a somewhat-different interface, but you expect that from most apps that work on X. So what's the difference? About the most that's reasonable is to stick .app on the end to tell people that it's not run in the usual manner (unless there's a script included to start it up, in which case no differentiation ought to be made). In addition to Debian and QuakeForge, I'm involved in a project to create a user environment that happens to use the GNUstep libraries. That project is called Backbone, and most of what we have done so far is included in Debian (the packages preferences.app, terminal.app, and textedit.app). We're not GNUstep. One of us is also a member of the GNUstep project, but that's not particularly relevant. but there must be a close relationship to GNUstep when you have: preferences - GNUstep Preferences application terminal - Terminal Emulator for GNUstep textedit.app - Basic text editor for GNUstep Those descriptions are the result of Debian maintainer malfunctions. None of those applications is for GNUstep; they're part of, and for, Backbone. So far they still work with vanilla GNUstep, but that will not always be so and we don't feel any need to ensure that. Why should packages that are part of the Backbone desktop (I use quotes because putting a desktop on the root menu makes no sense from our perspective), or packages that are simply useful (or not) programs that use the GNUstep libraries, be advertised as being GNUstep programs? That's silly. see above. I'd rather see: gstep-preferences - GNUstep Preferences application from the Backbone project gstep-terminal - Terminal Emulator for GNUstep from the Backbone project gstep-textedit - Basic text editor for GNUstep from the Backbone project And I'd rather see: backbone - Dependency package for the Backbone user environment backbone-sysapps - Core applications for Backbone backbone-sysframeworks - Core frameworks for Backbone backbone-systools - Core utilities for Backbone backbone-* (a la carte things from the currently-empty Common set) where -sysapps contains Preferences, Terminal, TextEdit, and eventually our workspace manager; -systools contains open, the openapp diversion, bbterm, and panel (a command-line program for popping up various types of panels [dialog boxes] -- this may not be what it is eventually called, of course); and -sysframeworks contains the PrefsModule and HelpPanel frameworks. That would be the Backbone System (equivalent to the GNOME or KDE core), which we plan to make more integrated over time. Additionally, we'll have other sections for optional components (much like Debian's optional and extra priorities) which can be cherry-picked. [snip] [btw, the mail I'm replying to is the *first* (that I can find) containing the Backbone word. if this had been mentioned earlier, I'm sure it would had made people happier packages with names like backbone-$whatever or $whatever-backbone that the current $foo.app.] Take that up with the Debian maintainers of the Backbone packages. While I am a DD, I have nothing to do with their packaging (since all of the GNUstep stuff I have is source-built and usually from cvs, I wouldn't be using my own packages). -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Projecthttp://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
* Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041008 10:11]: (b) what can be regarded as most useful for our users (I, at lest, think it is, and some other people will as well, I hope). I don't really see how it's useful -- it doesn't matter what libs are used by an app. In my experience many users (including me) prefer to use applications, which use libraries, which the allready have installed. I use xfce4 and have therefore gtk installed. I try to aboid KDE and qt applications, since I don't like to clutter my notebook harddisk even more. Having a hint if a package contains a KDE, GNOME, gnustep, simple X or textmode app would be a benefit for those users, but it wouldn't hurt the other users who don't care about that. Yours sincerely, Alexander signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
(Note: I'm not subscribed to -devel, only -private and d-d-a, so please Cc me on replies -- this text is copied from the web archives, which is the reason the references are gone) Steve Greenland wrote: On 06-Oct-04, 06:41 (CDT), Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And developers writing with GNUstep recognize the same thing. The difference is that we *have* to give enough information about an app using only two pieces of information -- the name of the app and its icon. *Have* to? Why? Because those are the only bits of meta-info available for programs on an OpenStep-compliant system. OpenStep intentionally does not provide for a program menu including additional metadata, instead using certain well-known directories that you browse in a file manager. Other applications manage to provide unique names. So do we. The names for GNUstep-based programs ARE unique -- no other free software is using (or, to my knowledge, has ever used) those names, and the names that conflict are named as they are for descriptiveness and for compatibility (Terminal, Preferences). As for those names, Terminal and Preferences are named after (and are reimplementations of) programs NeXT created for their NeXTstep operating system, and as such they are important for interoperability. There needs to be a program called Terminal responding under that name to the distributed-objects (DO) system, so that other programs can spawn (and optionally control) a new shell (or just a program) in one of its windows. We couldn't just name it something merely similar -- that would break the API (where names for things are significant). One of the things I'll be working on at some point will be an xterm-like client interface (operating via DO) to Terminal to act as an x-terminal-emulator alternative -- precisely BECAUSE we think operating in a mixed environment is important. It'll probably be called bbterm or something similar. Why does being a GNUstep application give you the right to claim generic names like mail, editor, etc. False argument. None of those names have been used by GNUstep-based apps, and no one has posited any such right. Claiming necessity doesn't make it so. If it's simply a convention of the GNUstep developer's, then your claim to have considered mixed systems is bogus. It's not merely a convention, it's something that falls out of the spec that GNUstep implements and something that we have to live with. Note that I'm not promoting the idea that all GNUstep packages names must begin with gnustep-. I find the .app convention sufficiently clear; in fact, I assume pretty much anthing with a . in it's name GNUstep. To be fair, not all .app programs/packages are created using GNUstep, but AFAIK all of them are intended to be used with it (or with a part of it, like Window Maker). If we are going to allow generic names, then obviously they would be applied to the most commonly used or best for the novice example, so I'm pretty sure that GNUstep apps aren't going to get them. On one of those counts, many GNUstep-using apps often win over their competition. e.g. Terminal is a _very_ nice terminal emulator with excellent compatibility (it does UTF-8 well, and emulates the Linux console very well) and many features that are not found elsewhere. TextEdit is a rather good plaintext/RTF text editor, modulo some bugs in the GNUstep libraries. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Projecthttp://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So do we. The names for GNUstep-based programs ARE unique -- no other free software is using (or, to my knowledge, has ever used) those names, and the names that conflict are named as they are for descriptiveness and for compatibility (Terminal, Preferences). This is because other authors/projects have enough of a clue not to use such names. Those names made sense for NeXT, where everybody expected there to be a single authoritative application supplied by the vendor for each (basic) niche. They do _not_ make sense for a modern system containing components from many disparate sources. It's simply rude to claim generic namespace like that. It's like the sharing a common orchard, each person being sure to only use a reasonable portion of the apples -- and then one day somebody shows up and says Aha! There are many apples left! Nobody must want them! and proceeds to pick them all and pack them all away in his house. He was correct that there were many apples left, but the conclusion that nobody must want them, and that it was alright for him to claim them all was wrong. Similarly, while you're correct that these names were not in use, it is _not_ valid to conclude that it's OK (as in, will be accepted by the general community) to then just use them for your apps. It would be reasonable if there were a way of mapping generic names (e.g., terminal) to specific applications, and having the icon/menu/whatever display that name. Some users might pick the gnustep versions, others might map them to gnome apps. It seems that such a scheme would satisfy your interface concerns without causing friction with other projects. On one of those counts, many GNUstep-using apps often win over their competition. e.g. Terminal is a _very_ nice terminal emulator with excellent compatibility (it does UTF-8 well, and emulates the Linux console very well) and many features that are not found elsewhere. TextEdit is a rather good plaintext/RTF text editor, modulo some bugs in the GNUstep libraries. The gnustep apps are alright, though when I've tried them, they seemed to crash fairly often. But anyway, that's not the issue. -Miles -- Fast, small, soon; pick any 2.
Re: Re: Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 09:20, Jeff Teunissen wrote: On 06-Oct-04, 06:41 (CDT), Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And developers writing with GNUstep recognize the same thing. The difference is that we *have* to give enough information about an app using only two pieces of information -- the name of the app and its icon. *Have* to? Why? Because those are the only bits of meta-info available for programs on an OpenStep-compliant system. OpenStep intentionally does not provide for a program menu including additional metadata, instead using certain well-known directories that you browse in a file manager. Executable names (or other file names) and Debian package names can differ. Or does an OpenStep-compliant system search the dpkg database? -- Petri Latvala
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Petri Latvala wrote: [fixing attributions] On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 09:20, Jeff Teunissen wrote: [Steve Greenland wrote:] On 06-Oct-04, 06:41 (CDT), Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And developers writing with GNUstep recognize the same thing. The difference is that we *have* to give enough information about an app using only two pieces of information -- the name of the app and its icon. *Have* to? Why? Because those are the only bits of meta-info available for programs on an OpenStep-compliant system. OpenStep intentionally does not provide for a program menu including additional metadata, instead using certain well-known directories that you browse in a file manager. Executable names (or other file names) and Debian package names can differ. Or does an OpenStep-compliant system search the dpkg database? We weren't talking about package names, we were talking about program names. I don't have problems with the standard Debian naming scheme for packages using GNUstep libs -- *.app, *.framework, *.bundle, etc. It's a bit silly (why do users need to be protected from unknowingly installing GNUstep libs?), but it doesn't bug me. What DOES bug me is mindlessly adding gnustep- to the names of all packages that use it, because most of the developers of those packages have dick to do with some mythical GNUstep desktop, which itself does not exist. In addition to Debian and QuakeForge, I'm involved in a project to create a user environment that happens to use the GNUstep libraries. That project is called Backbone, and most of what we have done so far is included in Debian (the packages preferences.app, terminal.app, and textedit.app). We're not GNUstep. One of us is also a member of the GNUstep project, but that's not particularly relevant. Why should packages that are part of the Backbone desktop (I use quotes because putting a desktop on the root menu makes no sense from our perspective), or packages that are simply useful (or not) programs that use the GNUstep libraries, be advertised as being GNUstep programs? That's silly. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Projecthttp://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Tilo Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 04 October 2004 20:23, Frank Küster wrote: I must have missed this thread... What is .bundle meant to indicate? On NeXT-Step systems the .bundle suffix of a directory indicates a dynamically linkable module (basically like a shared lib). Is Debian a NeXT-Step system? I guess not. Does .bundle have any meaning to our *users*? I guess no. It doesn't really matter whether you can teach the readers of ITP's on debian-devel what .bundle means. The question is whether we serve our users with what I would call a cryptic name for at least 90% of them. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
On Thursday 07 October 2004 10:09, Frank Küster wrote: Tilo Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 04 October 2004 20:23, Frank Küster wrote: I must have missed this thread... What is .bundle meant to indicate? On NeXT-Step systems the .bundle suffix of a directory indicates a dynamically linkable module (basically like a shared lib). Is Debian a NeXT-Step system? I guess not. Does .bundle have any meaning to our *users*? I guess no. It doesn't really matter whether you can teach the readers of ITP's on debian-devel what .bundle means. The question is whether we serve our users with what I would call a cryptic name for at least 90% of them. The intention of my answer was not to argue concerning the gnustep naming issue in any direction - I couldn't care less. The answer doesn't contain a single word regarding the naming discussion. The intention was to answer what I thought was a question of you: I must have missed this thread... What is .bundle meant to indicate? But I guess, it wasn't a question so I shouldn't have answered. Regards, Tilo
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Tilo Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 07 October 2004 10:09, Frank Küster wrote: Tilo Schwarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 04 October 2004 20:23, Frank Küster wrote: I must have missed this thread... What is .bundle meant to indicate? On NeXT-Step systems the .bundle suffix of a directory indicates a dynamically linkable module (basically like a shared lib). Is Debian a NeXT-Step system? I guess not. Does .bundle have any meaning to our *users*? I guess no. It doesn't really matter whether you can teach the readers of ITP's on debian-devel what .bundle means. The question is whether we serve our users with what I would call a cryptic name for at least 90% of them. The intention of my answer was not to argue concerning the gnustep naming issue in any direction - I couldn't care less. The answer doesn't contain a single word regarding the naming discussion. The intention was to answer what I thought was a question of you: I must have missed this thread... What is .bundle meant to indicate? The misunderstanding is that, since bundle has a meaning for developers (in a GNUstep context), you read it as 'What is a .bundle'. I must admit that I wasn't really interested in the answer. What I meant was: 'What is the message you want to send to the user by naming a package foo.bundle instead of foo'. It seems to me the answer is: There is no message. So my comment is: Why not keep it out of the name (after choosing a sensible name for the application in the first place)? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 07:40:06PM -0800, D. Starner wrote: I just installed the textedit.app package; it pulled in a few GNUstep libraries, but not a complete desktop environment. Do the GNUstep libs still start a demon at startup? Last time I checked, they did, instead of starting them only if you were running a GNUstep program, like KDE and GNOME do. I am not sure what you mean by startup. When the libraries were loaded, they started a few daemons, but, I believe KDE and GNOME libraries do the same thing. Again, how is GNUstep any different in this regard than the other desktop environments? If you mean when X11 was started, then, no, the GNUstep libraries did not load daemons when I started X11. I fail to see how they would. -- gram
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
I am not sure what you mean by startup. When Linux boots up. When the libraries were loaded, they started a few daemons, but, I believe KDE and GNOME libraries do the same thing. Again, how is GNUstep any different in this regard than the other desktop environments? At one point in time, GNUstep loaded daemons at bootup, before X was even started. Apparently, it doesn't now, I guess. -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Re: Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Miles Bader wrote: Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For me, I don't want GNUstep in the names of my programs because I am not connected to GNUstep and don't want to be. It is just a couple of libraries that I use to write my apps -- you wouldn't put GTK+ in the name of your apps, would you? Most GTK+ apps don't need any kind of special tag because they're named reasonably in the first place. The upstream developers apparently recognize that they will be often used as one part of a mixed system. And developers writing with GNUstep recognize the same thing. The difference is that we *have* to give enough information about an app using only two pieces of information -- the name of the app and its icon. Because of that _necessary_ restriction, we come up with names that are: 1. Not used by ANY other free software project, 2. Descriptive of what the application does, 3. Iconable (an icon can be created that fits with its name) And that is about the extent of the decision-making process. Many gnustep apps OTOH, use absurdly generic names, and I can only conclude that the developers do not think about mixed systems at all. I disagree in the first case, and you are incorrect in the second. It is this upstream flaw that forces these apps to have their names changed in Debian. A shame for true fans of those applications, I suppose, but what else can you expect? What forces the names to be changed is some kind of requirement, not in any foundation document nor in Policy, that the names of packages must be fair, and that we must protect people from having to install a couple of GNUstep libraries when they select a package that they might like. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Projecthttp://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Re: Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
On 06-Oct-04, 06:41 (CDT), Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And developers writing with GNUstep recognize the same thing. The difference is that we *have* to give enough information about an app using only two pieces of information -- the name of the app and its icon. *Have* to? Why? Other applications manage to provide unique names. Why does being a GNUstep application give you the right to claim generic names like mail, editor, etc. Claiming necessity doesn't make it so. If it's simply a convention of the GNUstep developer's, then your claim to have considered mixed systems is bogus. Note that I'm not promoting the idea that all GNUstep packages names must begin with gnustep-. I find the .app convention sufficiently clear; in fact, I assume pretty much anthing with a . in it's name GNUstep. If we are going to allow generic names, then obviously they would be applied to the most commonly used or best for the novice example, so I'm pretty sure that GNUstep apps aren't going to get them. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
On Monday 04 October 2004 20:23, Frank Küster wrote: Hi, could you do me the favor of producing readable mails, i.e. with empty lines between text and quotes, and sensible line lengths? Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank, Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.0.0), libgnustep-gui0-dev (= 0.8.3-1) It seems to me this will make it a binary that requires GNUstep to run it? Then, for the hundredth time, please call the package gnustep-cddb.bundle or something like that. No. I have already compromised the upstream name by adding .bundle, as suggested by the last flamewar on the subject as the only reasonable course of action. I must have missed this thread... What is .bundle meant to indicate? On NeXT-Step systems the .bundle suffix of a directory indicates a dynamically linkable module (basically like a shared lib). But besides the shared lib(s) it also includes other resources, which are needed to run the bundle, e.g. GUI data, graphical and audio data, language dependent data like translation files, other data which is needed by the module. Regards, Tilo
Re: Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:41:03AM -0400, Jeff Teunissen wrote: Miles Bader wrote: Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For me, I don't want GNUstep in the names of my programs because I am not connected to GNUstep and don't want to be. It is just a couple of libraries that I use to write my apps -- you wouldn't put GTK+ in the name of your apps, would you? Most GTK+ apps don't need any kind of special tag because they're named reasonably in the first place. The upstream developers apparently recognize that they will be often used as one part of a mixed system. And developers writing with GNUstep recognize the same thing. The difference is that we *have* to give enough information about an app using only two pieces of information -- the name of the app and its icon. I don't see how this is the case. In the dark ages, GTK+ applications were frequently called 'gfoo' (like 'kfoo' for KDE apps), with 'foo' being a descriptive name. These days, however, GTK/GNOME applications have reasonably unconfusing names like 'evolution', 'nautilus', 'epiphany', 'marlin'. Compare that with 'Mail', 'PDFViewer', 'Cddb', etc. The usability of GNOME applications is introduced further down the stack, i.e., the actual program names are not exposed to the end-user, but the GUI mentiones (localized) strings like 'Mail', 'File Browser', 'Web Browser', 'Sample Editor' (correlating with the above mentioned names). Michael
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Many gnustep apps OTOH, use absurdly generic names, and I can only conclude that the developers do not think about mixed systems at all. I disagree in the first case, and you are incorrect in the second. What can I say? You claim this, but the evidence strongly says otherwise. Anyway, luckily Debian has proved to be a bit more clueful, and can keep the madness in check a bit. -Miles -- If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin]
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Küster wrote: If I'm wrong, I apologize and will not object against cddb.bundle (at least not because of this. Still the .bundle part is meaningless to me, but that might be due to my bad english). If I am not wrong, and GNUstep applications are indeed not designed to be used without using the Desktop environment, then, please, add gnustep- to the name. Yes, you are _very_ clearly wrong. There is no GNUstep program that requires the GNUstep Desktop, because there no GNUstep Desktop to require! Okay, then I don't mind leaving gnustep out (I still wonder why you wouldn't cry But I want gnustep in the name for advertising reasons). I still wonder what bundle could mean... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I said without GNOME installed, I meant without the entire GNOME desktop environment installed: nautilus, gnome-session, metacity, etc. No Gnome application I'm aware of requires metacity. I don't believe that gnome-session will be pulled in except for very strange cases. Nautilus certainly isn't required. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 11:00:56AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I said without GNOME installed, I meant without the entire GNOME desktop environment installed: nautilus, gnome-session, metacity, etc. No Gnome application I'm aware of requires metacity. I don't believe that gnome-session will be pulled in except for very strange cases. Nautilus certainly isn't required. I'm aware of that. My point was that GNUstep applications, like GNOME applications, don't require all of the standard desktop environment components (such as metacity, gnome-session, nautilus, etc.) to be installed for the application to work. -- gram
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Frank Küster wrote: Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Küster wrote: If I'm wrong, I apologize and will not object against cddb.bundle (at least not because of this. Still the .bundle part is meaningless to me, but that might be due to my bad english). If I am not wrong, and GNUstep applications are indeed not designed to be used without using the Desktop environment, then, please, add gnustep- to the name. Yes, you are _very_ clearly wrong. There is no GNUstep program that requires the GNUstep Desktop, because there no GNUstep Desktop to require! Okay, then I don't mind leaving gnustep out (I still wonder why you wouldn't cry But I want gnustep in the name for advertising reasons). For me, I don't want GNUstep in the names of my programs because I am not connected to GNUstep and don't want to be. It is just a couple of libraries that I use to write my apps -- you wouldn't put GTK+ in the name of your apps, would you? I still wonder what bundle could mean... At its most basic, a bundle is a directory with a certain structure. An .app is a bundle, as are an .rtfd document and a .framework library. An app is a bundle that contains an application (complete with its resources, like images, property list files, text data used by the app, etc.). An RTFD is a compound-document bundle containing an RTF file and usually some image files. A Framework is a bundle containing a special shlib, headers, and resources (executables, images, etc.) In this case, CDDB.bundle is just your basic loadable bundle, containing code and/or resources that can be loaded into an app using the NSBundle interface. This one provides code in the form of a class to query a cddb server. By the way, .prefs modules (used by Preferences, preferences.app in Debian and one of my apps) are bundles too. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Projecthttp://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For me, I don't want GNUstep in the names of my programs because I am not connected to GNUstep and don't want to be. It is just a couple of libraries that I use to write my apps -- you wouldn't put GTK+ in the name of your apps, would you? Most GTK+ apps don't need any kind of special tag because they're named reasonably in the first place. The upstream developers apparently recognize that they will be often used as one part of a mixed system. Many gnustep apps OTOH, use absurdly generic names, and I can only conclude that the developers do not think about mixed systems at all. It is this upstream flaw that forces these apps to have their names changed in Debian. A shame for true fans of those applications, I suppose, but what else can you expect? -Miles -- Run away! Run away!
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
I just installed the textedit.app package; it pulled in a few GNUstep libraries, but not a complete desktop environment. Do the GNUstep libs still start a demon at startup? Last time I checked, they did, instead of starting them only if you were running a GNUstep program, like KDE and GNOME do. When I asked about it, the Debian developer said they didn't care about mixed use environments. If it still requires a demon running, then that is an important depends that needs labeling. -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Frank Küster wrote: Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 05:27:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Seo Sanghyeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: For example, camera package name was changed to camera.app to prevent namespace pollution. Are you saying that it should be gnustep-camera.app? If so, why? I don't mind what it's called as long as I can see by its name that it is useless without gnustep. In other words: There has to be the string gnustep in its name, preferably at the beginning. What about nautlius? evolution? epiphany? Do they have to have to start with gnome-, so that I know there useless without GNOME installed? Are they really useless without a complete GNOME environment installed? I never used nautilus or epiphany. I used evolution (in woody), but dropped it because it didn't seem to behave deterministic... Anyway, I think it depends on what one means with GNOME installed. I don't mind having some libraries for Gnome around (actually I use gnumeric), but for sure I do not want the Gnome desktop. But if I remember correctly, GNUstep applications do not just work if X11 and some basic library is installed, but need the GNUstep desktop to be installed. With Gnome and KDE, I had the impression that it was intended that all applications are usable even without using the Desktop environment - although of course they might work and interact nicer in their native environment. With GNUstep, it seemed to me that it was not intended to run applications without the Desktop environment. Comparable to WindowMaker Dock applications, which probably will not run under any other windowmanager. If I'm wrong, I apologize and will not object against cddb.bundle (at least not because of this. Still the .bundle part is meaningless to me, but that might be due to my bad english). If I am not wrong, and GNUstep applications are indeed not designed to be used without using the Desktop environment, then, please, add gnustep- to the name. Yes, you are _very_ clearly wrong. There is no GNUstep program that requires the GNUstep Desktop, because there no GNUstep Desktop to require! From the user's perspective, GNUstep is basically a set of libs and some directory hierarchy imposed by the requirements of the specifications GNUstep implements. That's it. The libs provide a pretty platform-independant library of non-GUI classes, and a fairly-well-working library of GUI classes that is partially window-system independant (i.e. the only GUI backends that work completely are for X, but there's one for Windows GDI that isn't too evil). GNUstep does not form a desktop environment, and it doesn't even claim to
Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:44:12PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 05:27:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: I don't mind what it's called as long as I can see by its name that it is useless without gnustep. In other words: There has to be the string gnustep in its name, preferably at the beginning. What about nautlius? evolution? epiphany? Do they have to have to start with gnome-, so that I know there useless without GNOME installed? Are they really useless without a complete GNOME environment installed? [...] Anyway, I think it depends on what one means with GNOME installed. I don't mind having some libraries for Gnome around (actually I use gnumeric), but for sure I do not want the Gnome desktop. When I said without GNOME installed, I meant without the entire GNOME desktop environment installed: nautilus, gnome-session, metacity, etc. With GNUstep, it seemed to me that it was not intended to run applications without the Desktop environment. I just installed the textedit.app package; it pulled in a few GNUstep libraries, but not a complete desktop environment. The TextEdit program seemed to work fine, just as Epiphany of Evolution might, without the entire GNOME desktop environment installed. Comparable to WindowMaker Dock applications, which probably will not run under any other windowmanager. WindowMaker dock apps actually do work fine with other window manager; cf. BlackBox, pwm. -- gram
