Martin Costabel wrote:
I really don't think we should have packages install their stuff
directly in /sw/Applications in their install phase; instead I think we
I'm not sure if I understand you here. The finkcommander package builds
in /sw/src/finkcommander-0.5.1-2/FinkCommander and installs int
Here's an extended quote from Apple's Human Interface Guidelines document:
By default, applications should be installed in /Applications, where they
are accessible to all users on that particular computer. It may be
appropriate to install some applications in the Applications folder in a
user?s h
Benjamin Reed wrote:
[]
I really don't think we should have packages install their stuff
directly in /sw/Applications in their install phase; instead I think we
I'm not sure if I understand you here. The finkcommander package builds
in /sw/src/finkcommander-0.5.1-2/FinkCommander and installs int
Martin Costabel wrote:
David R. Morrison wrote:
(And I have to admit I haven't understood why Aliases should be preferred
here... a command-line-oriented program like Fink will have an easier
time manipulating symlinks, I would think.)
For one thing, aliases preserve the app's icon.
I put a ne
David R. Morrison wrote:
(And I have to admit I haven't understood why Aliases should be preferred
here... a command-line-oriented program like Fink will have an easier
time manipulating symlinks, I would think.)
For one thing, aliases preserve the app's icon.
I put a new version of my finkcomman
I think I might be the one responsible for the suggestion that we should
"hide" the location where we store Fink applications. I was under the
impression -- which I now discover is incorrect -- that /sw was hidden
in the Finder by default.
(This raises an interesting question about whether we sho
Matthias Neeracher wrote:
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
Matthias Neeracher wrote:
2. Foo.app and Foo.framework are installed to /sw/.Applications and
/sw/Library/Frameworks respectively.
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
Benjamin Reed:
Darian Lanx:
except for the Frameworks dir. I don't see fink ever needing a
PrivateFrameworks dir though.
Right, no PrivateFrameworks,
Mostly agreed. PrivateFrameworks is for non-public frameworks, and open source frameworks are pretty much public by definition.
but I still thin
On 27-Jan-04, at 17:15, Kevin Horton wrote:
At 18:51 -0800 26/1/04, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
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
On Jan 30, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
At 20:29 -0800 29/1/04, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
I just had a peek over there, and there are indeed a small number of
packages that don't seem to be getting acted upon at all (The oldest
of them seems to be xkbsw). The vast majority, however, did
At 20:29 -0800 29/1/04, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kevin Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 18:51 -0800 26/1/04, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
>Could you explain in what way NOT allowing .app bundle
>packages enriches fink currently?
>
>If native KDE runs everythi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kevin Horton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 18:51 -0800 26/1/04, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
> >Could you explain in what way NOT allowing .app bundle
> >packages enriches fink currently?
> >
> >If native KDE runs everything that KDE/X11 does and looks good, then
> >
At 18:51 -0800 26/1/04, Matthias Neeracher wrote:
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 bas
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 sui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 26, 2004, at 5:32 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
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 mak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 26, 2004, at 1:42 AM, D. Höhn 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 t
On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 05:50 PM, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
...
P.S. I have so many permissions problems in OSX that I've made cron jobs
to fix it all every night (over-kill, but it works) so making
/sw/Applications writable only by root probably won't work. hell, /
isn't even only
18 matches
Mail list logo
