Re: ITP: cddb.bundle -- CDDB Bundle for GNUstep
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Jeff Teunissen [Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:52:37 -0400]:
>
> > What DOES bug me is mindlessly adding "gnustep-" to the names of all
> > packages that use it, because most of the developers of those packages
> > have dick to do with some mythical GNUstep desktop, which itself does
> > not exist.
>
> but note that adding "gnustep-" or "gstep-" as prefix to "these"
> packages is/was (from what I've seen so far):
>
> (a) the preferred solution by a high majority of DD, as to what
> benefits most to archive namespace clutter.
I've only seen a few highly-vocal people whenever this comes up, and this
suggests to me that few people even /care/ -- but those few that do are in
violent disagreement.
> (b) what can be regarded as most useful for our users (I, at lest,
> think it is, and some other people will as well, I hope).
I don't really see how it's useful -- it doesn't matter what libs are used
by an app.
Why should, for example, TalkSoup (an IRC client) be called
g[nu]step-talksoup? It's the only program with that name, it's not
"generic", it's not part of the GNUstep project, and it's not even written
by a member of the GNUstep project. It has a somewhat-different interface,
but you expect that from most apps that work on X. So what's the difference?
About the most that's reasonable is to stick .app on the end to tell people
that it's not run in the usual manner (unless there's a script included to
start it up, in which case no differentiation ought to be made).
> > In addition to Debian and QuakeForge, I'm involved in a project to
> > create a user environment that happens to use the GNUstep libraries.
> > That project is called Backbone, and most of what we have done so far
> > is included in Debian (the packages preferences.app, terminal.app, and
> > textedit.app).
> >
> > We're not GNUstep. One of us is also a member of the GNUstep project,
> > but that's not particularly relevant.
>
> but there must be a close relationship to GNUstep when you have:
>
> preferences - GNUstep Preferences application
> terminal - Terminal Emulator for GNUstep
> textedit.app - Basic text editor for GNUstep
Those descriptions are the result of Debian maintainer malfunctions. None of
those applications is "for GNUstep"; they're part of, and for, Backbone. So
far they still work with vanilla GNUstep, but that will not always be so and
we don't feel any need to ensure that.
> > Why should packages that are part of the Backbone "desktop" (I use
> > quotes because putting a desktop on the root menu makes no sense from
> > our perspective), or packages that are simply useful (or not) programs
> > that use the GNUstep libraries, be advertised as being "GNUstep
> > programs"? That's silly.
>
> see above. I'd rather see:
>
> gstep-preferences - GNUstep Preferences application from the
> Backbone project
> gstep-terminal - Terminal Emulator for GNUstep from the Backbone
> project
> gstep-textedit - Basic text editor for GNUstep from the Backbone
> project
And I'd rather see:
backbone - Dependency package for the Backbone user environment
backbone-sysapps - Core applications for Backbone
backbone-sysframeworks - Core frameworks for Backbone
backbone-systools - Core utilities for Backbone
backbone-* (a la carte things from the currently-empty Common set)
where -sysapps contains Preferences, Terminal, TextEdit, and eventually our
workspace manager; -systools contains open, the openapp diversion, bbterm,
and "panel" (a command-line program for popping up various types of panels
[dialog boxes] -- this may not be what it is eventually called, of course);
and -sysframeworks contains the PrefsModule and HelpPanel frameworks.
That would be the Backbone System (equivalent to the GNOME or KDE core),
which we plan to make more integrated over time. Additionally, we'll have
other sections for optional components (much like Debian's optional and
extra priorities) which can be cherry-picked.
[snip]
> [btw, the mail I'm replying to is the *first* (that I can find)
> containing the "Backbone" word. if this had been mentioned earlier,
> I'm sure it would had made people happier packages with names like
> backbone-$whatever or $whatever-backbone that the current $foo.app.]
Take that up with the Debian maintainers of the Backbone packages. While I
am a DD, I have nothing to do with their packaging (since all of the GNUstep
stuff I have is source-built and usually from cvs, I wouldn't be using my
own packages).
--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/
Reply to: