Bug#120209: Bug#143084: RFP: rox-filer -- a fast graphical file manager for the X Window System.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> I would like to ask you if you have had any success with the
> rox* packages. If you want to I can take over this. I do not use the
> application so if you are more experienced I'll happily let you do
> that job. :)
Yes and no. See below.
> Just talked to Jan Wagemakers who suggested that I should see this
> bug-report.
Strange, I just checked it myself to see what I wrote to other people before
and saw there's nothing there. I probably forgot to include the bug address
in my mails.
Anyhow. I've got a number of packages available at
deb{,-src} http://auric.debian.org/~mechanix/ rox-stable/
deb{,-src} http://auric.debian.org/~mechanix/ rox-devel/
Big warning: some of them are somewhat broken - they need you to make some
symlinks or set CHOICESPATH or ...
I'm actually working on more than just rox-filer, but not everything is
finished yet. That's one reason for not having uploaded final packages yet.
The second reason is that I'm disagree with some of the design of ROX.
I really dislike the AppDir system. It defeats our package manager for one
thing; it doesn't cooperate / scale wrt $PATH; and the idea of storing
application information in files in subdirectories is a plain abomination if
you ask me. Also, I don't even want to think of the security implications of
running scripts or programs inside directories by default [1], and having to
go through hoops and loops to get to see inside first. And when I'm looking
at a directory in a file browser, I want to see a directory icon - not an
icon which happens to be AppIcon.xpm inside that directory.
My second major gripe is with the Choices system. ROX had to be as stupid as
both GNOME and KDE have been before and reinvent it's own mime system.
I've just mostly disabled AppDirs for now in my version, but I really want
to get ROX to cooperate with mime-support before I really do more then just
upload to a private repository.
I'm not sure yet how I'll continue; when the code is there I'll get in touch
with the ROX developer first and ask his opinion. Surely whatever I upload
will be very different from how ROX usually behaves.
If you people think someone should package plain ROX, then I'd say go ahead
- I'll name my packages different. Just check my diffs too because I think
some things may still be of interest.
The alternative is to wait and/or test what I currently have. I'll try to
make fix the problems in my repository ASAP. I've got some packages queued
which just need rebuilding and all should be fine then.
Regards,
Filip
[1] Which doesn't mean that all support for this type of execution should be
removed; it may be a viable alternative - *if the execution is only done
at the explicit request of the user*
--
"If you have time for deep planning/design it means that nobody is
actually using your software and when your cutting edge, well designed
implementation will see the light, noone is gonna use it because they've
already embraced something else."
-- Davide Libenzi, on software engineering
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: