[pkg-GNUstep-maintainers] New releases

[Eric Heintzmann]

Gürkan Sengün wrote:

>>>i will wait for the latest foundation/application kit before i do a new 
>>>gnustep live cd. that'll allow packaging a few more applications that only 
>>>work with the current (or later) gnustep. can you make a gnustep-gui with 
>>>camaelon patch?
>>>this is really something people want, we can just have it turned off by 
>>>default,
>>>won't hurt anyone.
>>>      
>>>
>>I will do some test and I'm going to try to speak to Nicolas Roard.
>>    
>>
>ok thank you alot! i can help on testing. and can you put me on cc: if 
>you talk with nicolas by email? if you talk with nicoals on #gnustep at
>irc.gnustep.org that's fine as well for me.
>  
>

Well, I can put you on cc if you want,  but I intend to talk to Nicolas 
in French...

>
>  
>
>>>have you tried wildmenus?
>>>      
>>>
>>In the past, yes but not recently.
>>    
>>
>i've added a WildMenus On|Off wrapper, and a Debian menu entry...
>  
>
OK as soon I get a DSL connection, I'll try it...

>  
>
>>>>>Can we drop the .app from the gnustep-app-wrapper scripts link?
>>>>>$ ls /usr/bin/*.app
>>>>>/usr/bin/GWorkspace.app  /usr/bin/Gorm.app  /usr/bin/ProjectCenter.app
>>>>>-> just GWorkspace, Gorm and ProjectCenter.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Maybe we should ask in debian-devel fist to be sure they don't think this 
>>>>namespace pollution ?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>19:23 < tarzeau> would having binaries called GWorkspace,Gorm,ProjectCenter
>>>in/usr/bin be namespace pollution?
>>>19:24 < asuffield> having crap in the path with capitals in it would be
>>>pretty putrid in the first place
>>>19:25 < tarzeau> asuffield: don't worry it won't affect you if you don't use
>>>anything that is labeled "GNUstep" in the description
>>>19:25 < asuffield> that's no excuse for uploading anything
>>>19:25 < tarzeau> they already exist but with .app in the binary name (not
>>>package, binary as in executable)
>>>19:25 < asuffield> so they're already broken
>>>19:25 < tarzeau> oh
>>>19:26 < tarzeau> would making them lowercase fix it?
>>>19:26 < tarzeau> is that in some policy? about capital letters in binary
>>>executables?
>>>19:26 < asuffield> probably not, policy doesn't specify every silly thing
>>>you can do
>>>19:29 < tarzeau> thanks
>>>      
>>>
>>We can also remove all apps wrapper in /usr/bin, just keep openapp ant
>>opentool wrappers. This is the only way to make sure no one will say we're
>>polluting namespace or we're doing silly things.
>>    
>>
>Weee.  NOOO :) we keep the apps wrapper binary and have e debian menu entry
>that's the best. as deek says, there's no policy or any other standard telling
>CapitalLetterBinaries are bad or anything. there's alot of other packages
>having such binaries as well. But i vote for having the .app removed, won't that
>confuse GWorkspace thinking it's an app bundle? I have no .app on my binaries,
>and let's have it at least removed on the non-generic binaries.
>
The problem is the binaries with generic name.
Should we have wrappers like ImageViewer, ProjectCenter, Desktop (in 
gworspace 0.6.5)... ?
I don't think so.
But should we use same policy for generic and non-generic wrappers ?
I don't know. All opinions are welcome.

> i don't think
>the generic binary executables in /usr/bin are aproblem it's only one with
>the deiban package names -> package terminal should be renamed to terminal.app etc... (i did that with my packages, and will do it for also the source package
>names....)
>  
>
About source packages, some contains only one app and thus can suffixed 
with .app, but some source packages contains several apps (like 
gworkspace) or one app and one lib (like gnumail). It's difficult to 
apply a general policy.

    Eric