[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cocotron
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: Cocotron |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:39:29 +0000 |
On 24 Dec 2006, at 02:00, Helge Hess wrote:
On Dec 24, 2006, at 02:00, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:
But I don't understand the difficulty of merging libFoundation and
GNUstep-base.
Well, then just do it! :-) It doesn't make a lot of sense to argue
about it, if its trivial, just demonstrate it :-)
Fair comment ... though (unless you have already done so) I think you
would need to assign copyright to the FSF before it would be worth
addressing technical issues.
In the past I have often posted the issues we encountered, but some
of the problematic areas are:
a) KVC support
b) FHS support
c) release policies (aka no stable releases promoted)
d) various minors
e) packaging
SOPE/OGo works perfectly fine on libFoundation *and* Cocoa, but it
doesn't work with GNUstep. Now its quite some research work to find
out why and fix it.
Sure, but people will help if you want to do it ... however we need
someone on the SOPE/OGo side, who understands how it all works and
what the problems are, to list issues in enough detail to make it a
reasonable way to spend time. For instance, pointing out what (if
anything) is wrong with KVC support in GNUstep-base, rather than just
saying that the area is problematic.
I believe it can also support the extension in libFoundation if
someone asks.
Neither SOPE nor OGo depend on libFoundation. In fact both work
just fine on Cocoa.
Because you took the effort to port/develop for cocoa. I haven't
spent much time looking at SOPE/OGo, but what time I did spend on it
was enough to notice some #ifdef options etc to cope with the
different systems.
But if license is the issue, there is almost nothing people can do.
I'm fine with LGPL, this was never a point for me. I don't know
whether it was a strong point for Ovidiu when he started
libFoundation, but I don't think so.
I believe Ovidiu objected to assigning copyright to the FSF more than
licensing. At least, that was what I understood from my few email
conversations with him.
As for the place to install (/usr/loca/lib or GNUstep/System/
Libraries),
gnustep-base works on both ways with right settings.
Even if this is the case (nobody seems to use it!)
I've tried it out, just to check it works ... but of course I'm
familiar/happy with the normal layout, so I don't do it routinely.
In practice you are probably correct hat nobody uses it (though I'm
often surprised by what the silent users of the software turn out to
be doing).
producing packages which install it properly also takes some more
days(/weeks).
Yes, good packaging is very time consuming.
I certainly can't write gnustep-make packages which install my
software into /usr/local out of the box? I probably need to
manually move gnustep-base and do all the right settings etc?
As a rough guess I think it would take about 2...4 weeks to get a
(deployable) port. Its the typical 90/10 rule that the last 10%
take 90% the time. We don't need a prototype showing SOPE/OGo
running on gstep-base, but a solid solution meeting basic QA
expectations.
How about spending the couple of days to get a prototype, then
publicise it and let other people find the rough edges and smooth
them out?
Actually I do think that gstep-base is slowly improving (adding FHS
etc), but I suppose the issue is that the core developers have a
different viewpoint on it (ie they don't think that proper FHS
support or Unix/Linux integration is crucial etc).
Well, only Nicola works on gnustep-make generally (you are probably
the second most expert person on gnustep-make after him) and you know
how busy he is on other things. If you have tracked the mailing
lists, you should be aware that all the core developers are in favor
of having FHS compliant installation available as an option. So,
since you are probably the person best placed to do it, and since you
know we would be happy to accept such a contribution, why not have a
chat with Nicola (to avoid any clash if you are both working on the
same thing) and just add it?
Anyways. If someone wants to do the port, you are very welcome and
of course you will get assistence. I still consider it a goal to
move to gstep-base, but at the current pace this will take some
additional 3 years. Probably we have moved to Mono till then ;->
As I've said, I'm interested in helping/doing this ... but I've got a
lot of other stuff I want to do too, so I need pointing in the right
direction to work in small, managable chunks. I imagine that, if you
could do make package stuff (ie install everything in the places you
want it) and point me to specific issues in the base library, I can
address the base library issues.
- Re: Cocotron, (continued)
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/23
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/23
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/23
- Re: Cocotron, Helge Hess, 2006/12/23
- Re: Cocotron, Sašo Kiselkov, 2006/12/24
- Re: Cocotron, Helge Hess, 2006/12/24
- Re: Cocotron, Sašo Kiselkov, 2006/12/24
- Re: Cocotron, Helge Hess, 2006/12/24
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/23