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 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.
> 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
>> 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
>> because except for a few nostalgic exNeXT users and a few
>> 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
>> something like it would require that level of involvement just to
>> going, do you think it would have the sort of adoption it has now?
>> 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
>>> (We switched over from CVS years ago, if you really tried CVS then
>>> 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@... >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep >>