[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: the .app extension on (some) wmaker apps

On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 06:10:36PM -0500, talein@whitestar.soark.net wrote:

> I'm trying to package wmsysmon.app -- but I'm not sure about the .app that
> *some* wmaker apps get -- I'm not sure if I should have the package as
> wmsysmon.app or just wmsysmon.

[ There are so many wm* packages showing up will need a wm-policy thing ]

The current situation I'm handling: wmmail up to 0.59 used a regular
configuration file. The next version uses a Proplist file... do I just
ignore the user and tell him to hand-upgrade the configuration, or do I
write a mapper? The second option looks really promising, and I've been
working on that on my so-called-free time, partly because I don't see any
need to upgrade to 0.62 (it has some rough edges) and partly because I know
the problem is going to show up more and more often.  Two minutes after I
wrote the first line of the mapper, I realized it wasn't going to be a nice
ride, and I need a perl wrapper for libProplist functions.

Thing is 0.62 builds wmmail.app which breaks the dock after upgrade. IMHO,
we can ditch the .app suffix but then again, many many docs will mention
SomeApp.app and not SomeApp (case is another popular problem with this
apps); also, it's becoming increasingly popular among authors to use
/usr/local/GNUstep/Apps/SomeApp.app/ (/usr/lib/GNUstep/Apps/SomeApp.app/ in
Debian) and put BINARIES there. Look in WPrefs.app, and you'll find there's
a link in there to ../../../../X11R6/bin (I'm going to change that to
../../../../../bin/X11) I'm still pondering a WPrefs.app link, too.

Back to this planet, I thougth wmsysmon was already packaged, wasn't it?

> The tarball is wmsysmon.app, but the binary that gets built is wmsysmon.

> I built an (undocumented) manpage for wmsysmon.app -- but lintian gives me
> a "binary with no manpage" since the binary doesn't have the .app --
> hrmmmm

call the manpage wmsysmon then (it would be neat if you could actually write
a manpage and send that upstream); there's nothing wrong with
wmsysmon.app_<version>.org.tar.gz (the source package has to be called
wmsysmon.app). The binary package can be named wmsysmon or wmsysmon.app. I
would choose the second if that's the upstream name for the app, which is
another source of trouble: wm.apps' upstream authors dodn't seem to be
consistent with themselves.

> Should I leave the package as .app, but have the binary/manpage as-is
> (wmsysmon)?

I don't see a problem with that.


Reply to: