Re: Installer.app feedback

[Rogelio M . Serrano Jr .]

NEXT format? Im sorry im new to NEXTish things but where can i find info on 
that? Maybe that is enough. Im using a simple cpio.bz2 packaging myself and it 
is good enough for my needs.

On 2004-06-23 21:39:35 +0800 Frederico Muñoz <fsmunoz@gesal.org> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>