Re: State of the 'Step

[Gürkan Sengün]

Jordan,

> The Debian folks actually do a pretty good job of maintaining an easily
> installed workable group of GNUstep applications. I don't use them
> because I want to modify some of the apps with my own icons and adjust
> the UI using Gorm, also want to be able to install updated apps easily.
> Debian changes the installation path so mixing and matching is a hassle.

I really like to not go through the hassle of installing/updating GNUstep
manually myself too. But what's really really bad with Debian is (I mean if you
go with sid/unstable, you really should get the latest tarball releases,
but the version there is heavily outdated). This really sucks. Especially
for people that build things upon that stuff. That would be at least me,
trying to make a nice showcase of GNUstep on a http://livecd.gnustep.org/

Not much I can do about it. Unfortunately it's not too easy to build all the
latest stuff as Debian packages, I failed trying so. So there's not but just
waiting for the new versions to get into Debian...

I wish there will be a new tarball release soon, so that version with the menus
for the apps that fit into Windows like menus/windows integrates better into
GNOME and KDE (for the people that use that).

btw, I miss Bean too, and Chess.app, and NetHack.app and...

Yours,
Guerkan

> I think it would be great if we could come up with a system to identify
> applications that are known to build and run on a certain base/back/gui.
> Perhaps it could be tied to the version of Startup so that a few weeks
> before a new version of Startup is released it goes into to feature lock
> giving Application developers a chance to certify their apps against
> that version of Startup. Perhaps a numbering scheme like
> "GWorkspace-0.8.7-cert-0.22.0.tgz" could indicate that this is the 0.8.7
> version of GWorkspace and THIS tarball has been demonstrated to compile
> and run on the default installation of Startup-0.22.0. It would of
> course be best if more than one person tests the app. Then Etoile,
> Debian, BSD, etc. could use those versions as a starting point to mod
> for their distributions, of course passing any bugs and patches
> upstream. Maybe GAP could host the certified version of the applications
> if they were willing.
>
> -j
>
>
>
> On 2010-02-15 22:26:33 +0100 Gregory Casamento
> <greg.casamento@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ronald,
> >
> > You're preaching to the choir here on this one. Any ideas how to make
> > that happen? I would love to get up to date packages everywhere.
> >
> > Thanks, GC
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 3:39 AM, Ronald C.F. Antony
> > <rcfa@cubiculum.com> wrote:
> > > Even more to the point: unless there are simple GnuStep meta-packages
> > > for the major BSD and Linux distributions that are reasonable
> > > "click-install-run" easy, most of the effort going into GNUStep is
> > > wasted, because except for a few nostalgic exNeXT users and a few
> > > developers, nobody is going to use it.
> > > I didn't have time to play with GNUStep for ages, but I keep
> > > following the development from a distance, but think about it for a
> > > moment: if KDE or something like it would require that level of
> > > involvement just to get going, do you think it would have the sort of
> > > adoption it has now?
> > >
> > > Ronald
> > >
> > > On 14 Feb 2010, at 16:34, Fred Kiefer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Great to hear how much GNUstep software you are using. But being a
> > > > developer I am most interested in what didn't work :-(
> > > > Why did you have to abandon your attempt to compile GNUstep from SVN?
> > > > (We switched over from CVS years ago, if you really tried CVS then this
> > > > was a very old version of GNUstep)
> > > >
> > > > And are there any interesting patches on the debian patch system for
> > > > GNUstep that didn't make it upstream?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> > > Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> > > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep