Re: Installer.app feedback

[Frederico Muñoz]

On 2004-06-23 14:31:03 +0100 Björn Giesler <giesler@ira.uka.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Am 23.06.2004 um 15:05 schrieb Frederico Muñoz:
>> The main idea - and what is actually already done - is this: for each 
>> packaging format there is a bundle.
> 
> Does that mean that the installer handles different packaging formats, such 
> as .deb, .rpm etc.?
> 

Yes. The idea is to cope with the native package format. This only for the 
package installation part (i.e. this is the same as using dpkg or rpm, *not* 
the same as using apt or yum or urpmi).

> Your proposal sounds reasonable; however: Since GNUstep is a software system 
> that has no need for the complicated packaging convolutions that traditional 
> Unix software needs, and is quite distinct from the surrounding Unix/Windows 
> environment, wouldn't it be more sound to leave RPMs etc. quite alone and 
> create a much simpler format just for GNUstep?
> 

Well, that could be an option. I actually have a bundle that handles .pkg 
packages based on the simple NeXT format, but I made that only for testing the 
application. The problem with this is the one that always appears on 
discussions of this kind: some people want GNUstep to have the possibility to 
behave as a Desktop/OS, other people as a development framework. Several people 
told me to *not* create yeat another packaing format for GNUstep, instead use 
the one in the system.

I have to admit that I share somewaht the same view concerning this matter... 
as soon as the base GNUstep framework is installed GNUstep applications and 
frameworks could be dealt with internally. But I know that most people don't 
think this way, so having the bundle system could be the best way to go: in the 
event that GNUstep adopts some kind of packaging it can be easily adopted by 
Installer, and it can also integrate with the underlying packaging system.

Thanks you for your feedback,

best regards,

Frederico Muñoz