On 2004/04/21, at 5:23 PM, Etsushi Kato wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@@(sed 's/^LIBR =.*/LIBR =
-framework R/' \
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@@(sed 's/^LIBR =.*/LIBR =
-F$(prefix) -framework R/' \
Oops. Since $(prefix) contains slash, this should be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
On 2004/04/18, at 9:56 PM, Jeff Whitaker wrote:
All: I'm working on a new r-base package which will include R built
as a
framework and R.app (in addition to the command line X11 version of
R). I
went back and re-read the thread on .apps in Fink, but it didn't seem
like
there was any consensus
why not just make a new tree on the main, crypto level and call it
native or dotapp ?? So it's easily added and removed from the pkg
listings.
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 18-Apr-04, at 2:10 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
I agree w
Martin Costabel wrote:
Jeff Whitaker wrote:
[]
BTW: python and tcltk could be packaged to do this as well.
There is one point with Python, but also with tcl, probably: Where does
one put the site-packages afterwards? I mean all the modules from *-py23
packages. In Apple's philosophy, they are pu
I agree with Martin that we should accept this as the new policy, but for
now confine these packages to the unstable tree to give some time to make
sure we don't need to modify the policy further.
Martin: I was probably the one who suggested in the earlier discussion that
the symlink for the .app
Jeff Whitaker wrote:
All: I'm working on a new r-base package which will include R built as a
framework and R.app (in addition to the command line X11 version of R). I
went back and re-read the thread on .apps in Fink, but it didn't seem like
there was any consensus on the issue of whether to in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jeff Whitaker wrote:
All: I'm working on a new r-base package which will include R built as a
framework and R.app (in addition to the command line X11 version of R). I
went back and re-read the thread on .apps in Fink, but it didn't seem like
th
All: I'm working on a new r-base package which will include R built as a
framework and R.app (in addition to the command line X11 version of R). I
went back and re-read the thread on .apps in Fink, but it didn't seem like
there was any consensus on the issue of whether to install symlinks or
ali
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 05:39 PM, rand wrote:
Ultimately, you have to factor in one thing, what is the goal of the
fink
project? Is it to manage everything that is ported in one way or
another
from any unix platform? Or is it to manage a certain type of porting
structure? If you thi
* Bill Bumgarner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12 Jan 2003 08:21]:
> On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 07:49 US/Eastern, Max Horn wrote:
> >At 20:14 Uhr -0500 11.01.2003, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
> >Benjamin already replied to this, so I won't do it again.
>
> He replied based on false assumptions and, unfortunatel
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Kow K wrote:
> As far as I can see, the reason that more and more people are attracted
> to Fink is *not* because it provides a purer Unix environment, but
> because it provides cool stuff like GIMP, well known as the Photoshop
> Killer for free. This is my personal observatio
A humble opinion from a list observer again
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 05:18 PM, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, rand wrote:
Right/wrong? Not the point, the point is that a lot of users will
attempt to move them, we need to realise this and build fink
accordingly
if it go
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, rand wrote:
> Right/wrong? Not the point, the point is that a lot of users will
> attempt to move them, we need to realise this and build fink accordingly
> if it goes this route.
They'll learn soon enough that you can't do certain things. OSX is not
OS9. Just because you (t
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 05:01 PM, mathias meyer wrote:
situation: you have an app (hidden directory) and a visible symlink to
that.
We were discussing carbon aliases. Aliases are completely different
semantics than symlinks. Do not confuse the two or use the words
interchangably.
On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 11:42 US/Eastern, Jared wrote:
Frankly, because if you want a GUI solution, you should conform to the
way the GUI works. Creating something which is only "sorta like other
Mac apps" isn't good enough. You shouldn't expect others to work
around your decisions. Your de
max, ben, bill and all,
let me add my thoughts as well. what is actually the gain of having
.apps in fink? for you it is none as you pointed out. the main reason
why i'd like, and i might here speak for others as well, to have .apps
in fink is the following:
software updates might bring great
On 03/1/12 7:50 PM, "Hisashi T Fujinaka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, rand wrote:
>
>> Actually moving the apps is a very valid argument. I don¹t do it all
>> that much but the first thing two of my friends did when they got their
>> new macs with osx was to completely screw
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, rand wrote:
> Actually moving the apps is a very valid argument. I don¹t do it all
> that much but the first thing two of my friends did when they got their
> new macs with osx was to completely screw the os:) renaming folders
> such as [Applications] [thisfolder] etc and mo
On 03/1/12 11:43 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:29:54 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Fink-devel] .apps in fink
> Cc: Jared <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
At the moment, there are very few .apps in Fink. I am not strongly
opinionated on either side of the issue of adding new applications to
Fink, but I have an idea for the existing, necessary, ones. In my
opinion, the .apps (Such as XDarwin and AquaTerm) that are already in
Fink should be put i
The problem in this discussion is that there are very different basic
assumptions made by the various parties. I don't believe that we can
get to an agreement, ever. Bill and Ben consider some things for
important which I don't consider important at all, and vice versa. I
don't actually believe
Jared wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
[]
Why is everyone hung up on MOVING the stupid apps Fink does *not*
need to support moving of the apps. If the user wants to 'move' the
apps, they can create copies or links. Done deal.
I agree fully with Bi
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 11:22 US/Eastern, Ben Hines wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 08:03 AM, Jared wrote:
Using aliases is not Mac-like. Giving users the illusion of moving
their apps isn't good enough. Besides, at
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 08:29 AM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 11:22 US/Eastern, Ben Hines wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 08:03 AM, Jared wrote:
Using aliases is not Mac-like. Giving users the illusion of moving
their apps isn't good enough. Besides, at
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 11:21 AM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
Right, they work fine everywhere. What would stop a user from moving
it out of /sw/Applications? In fact, I would expect users to go "I
want all of my apps in one place", and move them into /Applications,
first thing they do...
On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 11:22 US/Eastern, Ben Hines wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 08:03 AM, Jared wrote:
Using aliases is not Mac-like. Giving users the illusion of moving
their apps isn't good enough. Besides, at this point, anyone using
Fink isn't going to be stopped by having t
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
He replied based on false assumptions and, unfortunately, I lost his
message.
Bottom line: If any application is installed in a proper, network
computing style, fashion, then no user should be able to move it or
rename it without
On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 10:38 US/Eastern, Ben Hines wrote:
*IF* the user desires the flexibility to move these apps around, they
can install them without fink.
Or they can create a copy in their account or /Applications and do what
they want. But it'll be a copy no longer under Fink's contr
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 08:03 AM, Jared wrote:
Using aliases is not Mac-like. Giving users the illusion of moving
their apps isn't good enough. Besides, at this point, anyone using
Fink isn't going to be stopped by having the item in a hidden
directory. (Right-click > Show Original e
On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 10:12 US/Eastern, Benjamin Reed wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
Read the post. I didn't say that Apps installed by Fink should be in
/Applications. They should be in /sw/Applications, to further
follow the Fink
guidelines. T
On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 07:49 US/Eastern, Max Horn wrote:
At 20:14 Uhr -0500 11.01.2003, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 14:33 US/Eastern,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't generally accept bundled .apps in fink, because they can be
moved by the user, and also to keep fin
Using aliases is not Mac-like. Giving users the illusion of moving
their apps isn't good enough. Besides, at this point, anyone using Fink
isn't going to be stopped by having the item in a hidden directory.
(Right-click > Show Original ends that search).
.apps just don't seem to go with what Fi
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 07:38 AM, Ben Hines wrote:
Ok, i just had another idea... to fully support movable .apps in
/sw/Applications, we could create a carbon ALIAS file in /Applications
to our installed .app. The user could move that app alias wherever
they wanted. RangerRick think
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 04:49 AM, Max Horn wrote:
At 20:14 Uhr -0500 11.01.2003, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
3) More and more Unix related tools have native Aqua ports available.
tk and wx immediately come to mind. Film-gimp on the applications
front. With PyObjC, CamelBones, and othe
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
Read the post. I didn't say that Apps installed by Fink should be in
/Applications. They should be in /sw/Applications, to further follow
the Fink
guidelines. They work fine there.
Right, they work fine everywhere. What would
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> > 2) Apps can't be moved any more readily than, say, /sw/bin/python or
> > /sw/share/doc/apache. Same goes for frameworks.
>
> What do you mean?
>
> You can pick up any application in /Applications and stick it somewhere
> else and it works just as
At 20:14 Uhr -0500 11.01.2003, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 14:33 US/Eastern,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't generally accept bundled .apps in fink, because they can be
moved by the user, and also to keep fink focused.
I know this has gone around before... but, to flog
2) Apps can't be moved any more readily than, say, /sw/bin/python or
/sw/share/doc/apache. Same goes for frameworks.
What do you mean?
You can pick up any application in /Applications and stick it somewhere
else and it works just as well. I can pick up my Mozilla.app and move
it to another m
On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 14:33 US/Eastern,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't generally accept bundled .apps in fink, because they can be
moved by the user, and also to keep fink focused.
I know this has gone around before... but, to flog a dead horse a bit
more because this has really star
39 matches
Mail list logo
