Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

Martin Costabel wrote: I can imagine installing KDE and having 150 apps on my desktop. =) I think we're better off making an alias in /Applications/Fink or something. When you install KDE-aqua right now, are you saying this will install 150 app bundles into /Applications? Good thing I haven't

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

Benjamin Reed wrote: Martin Costabel wrote: It would be better to make an Alias instead of a symlink. And put it on the Desktop instead of /Applications. This would be less intrusive. During package installation, people are used to things appearing on the desktop. I can imagine installing KD

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

On Jan 26, 2004, at 9:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message: 6 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:03:53 -0500 From: "David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks f

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

(Re-submit with From: set correctly) On Jan 26, 2004, at 9:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message: 6 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:03:53 -0500 From: "David R. Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-d

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

On Jan 27, 2004, at 12:24 AM, Darian Lanx wrote: What happens to the maitainer precedence then? Will the "native" app always be preffered? Why would anyone want to use KDE/X11 when they can have native KDE? To me, the crucial point is that all X11 based stuff, as well as the command line stuff,

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Zubrzycki wrote: | | On Jan 26, 2004, at 5:52 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: | |>> Martin Costabel wrote: |>> |>>> It would be better to make an Alias instead of a symlink. And put it |>>> on the Desktop instead of /Applications. This would be less |>>

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

In my view, the main reason for doing this is that there already exists software out there which on the one hand depends on UNIX libraries which are (or should be) part of Fink, but on the other hand is packaged in OS X form, as an .app bundle which uses a Cocoa interface. Either all of the Unix l

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Martin Costabel wrote: > > I believe we have one or two command line apps in fink which are binary. > > One of them is aquaterm that installs an app into /sw/Applications. I > never liked the fact that this is a binary installation, even when you > do "fink install". But I thi

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Martin Costabel wrote: D. Höhn 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. There are enough Th

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 26, 2004, at 5:52 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: Martin Costabel wrote: It would be better to make an Alias instead of a symlink. And put it on the Desktop instead of /Applications. This would be less intrusive. During package installation, people

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

Ben Hines wrote: Fine by me, as long as we stick to open source applications ONLY. The No one ever suggested anything else. objection about 'moving apps around' never did make sense to me, i think a more important objection is fink losing focus. I believe we have one or two command line apps

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

This sounds like a nice solution. Keith On Jan 26, 2004, at 5:52 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote: Martin Costabel wrote: It would be better to make an Alias instead of a symlink. And put it on the Desktop instead of /Applications. This would be less intrusive. During package installation, people are us

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

D. Höhn 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. There are enough This is a false opposition. There are more and more "Unix based applications"

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

Martin Costabel wrote: It would be better to make an Alias instead of a symlink. And put it on the Desktop instead of /Applications. This would be less intrusive. During package installation, people are used to things appearing on the desktop. I can imagine installing KDE and having 150 apps on

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

David R. Morrison wrote: [] My proposal is that we place .app's in /sw/Applications, and then in a postinstall script, set up a symlink from /Applications to the actual .app. It would be better to make an Alias instead of a symlink. And put it on the Desktop instead of /Applications. This would be

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 David R. Morrison wrote: | Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | |>I think we will have to restart the old discussion of /sw/Applications, |>too. And I mean a real discussion, not the hasty erection of religious |>taboos as we had in the p

Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages

David R. Morrison wrote: I agree with Martin: if we need to extend the FHS, we should do it in parallel to the way Apple did it. So we should use /sw/Library/Frameworks or /sw/System/Library/Frameworks, probably the former. (I don't understand the distinction between /System/Library/Frameworks a

.app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: .app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

On Jan 25, 2004, at 4:59 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: OK, I suppose this is going to be controversial. Any discussion? Fine by me, as long as we stick to open source applications ONLY. The objection about 'moving apps around' never did make sense to me, i think a more important objection i

.app's in Fink (was Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages)

Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we will have to restart the old discussion of /sw/Applications, > too. And I mean a real discussion, not the hasty erection of religious > taboos as we had in the past. I would really love to see things like > Tcl/Tk-aqua and rangerrick's KDE

Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages

Matthias Neeracher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > However, the package installs a framework, for which I think we don't > currently have a precedent. So my questions are: > > - Do y'all agree that frameworks are, in principle, fink packageable > matter? > - Where should frameworks be inst

Re: [Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages

Matthias Neeracher wrote: - Do y'all agree that frameworks are, in principle, fink packageable matter? - Where should frameworks be installed? /sw/lib/Frameworks ? /sw/lib/frameworks ? /sw/Frameworks? /sw/frameworks? /sw/lib/sw? My vote goes for a new directory /sw/Library and /sw/Library/Framew

[Fink-devel] CFD: Installing Frameworks from fink packages

Hi all, I'm thinking of creating a fink package for RubyCocoa (), a cocoa wrapper package for ruby, similar to what CamelBones does for Perl. It seems an appropriate subject for packaging to me because it: - Will depend on another fink package (ruby18) and no