That's really cool. I wonder if it would make more sense to make a reusable workflow that could apply to specific repos like apps-easydiff, apps-projectcenter, apps-gorm instead of tools-make though? That way you just go to those repos, get the appimages, etc.
Joseph Maloney Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) secure email. On Tuesday, May 26th, 2026 at 11:12 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > HI all, > > I used some time today to prototype this in GNUstep make, and successfully > built a portable image of EasyDiff: > > https://github.com/gnustep/tools-make/pull/70 > > I think lots of caveats (documented in the PR description), but it basically > works. It would be nice to have CI that builds non-flattened AppImages that > work on multiple architectures, for example. > > Best wishes, > > Graham. > >> On 25 May 2026, at 12:37, [email protected] via Discussion >> list for the GNUstep programming environment <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> Am 25.05.2026 um 10:41 schrieb Riccardo Mottola >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> [email protected] via Discussion list for the GNUstep >>> programming environment wrote: >>> >>>> I think, GNUstep needs lower hurdles for entering our ecosystem and so I >>>> had the thought „What if we distribute the GNUstep dev tools as >>>> AppImage?“, e.g. bundling everything needed (basic GNUstep installation; >>>> compiler, linker, make; Gorm.app and ProjectCenter.app; some example code) >>>> into an AppImage like PikoPixel did, so that our App can be run everywhere >>>> AppImages are supported. >>>> >>>> What do you think about the idea, would it help our cause? >>>> >>>> What would be the prerequisites for such an attempt? >>>> >>>> How much work would it be? >>> >>> I don't know about AppImages but GNUstep supports packing everything into a >>> single directory containing Application, frameworks, themes, preferences >>> into a single folder. >>> >>> It is useful to ship a single application with its environment, I use it >>> with success on windows and have scripts for that. Very convenient. >>> Theoretically it can also contain more than one app. >>> >>> It is instead not very smart having several directories for each app, since >>> that way you have multiple runtime installations and running them in >>> concurrency may cause issues (beyond space waste). I don't know how >>> AppImages would handle this. >> >> I mentioned AppImages because those are a recognized way to distribute apps >> für Linux (and BSD? I don’t know). Yeah, they somewhat reinvented the wheel >> after OpenSteps app bundle, but they still seem to be the way commonly used. >> Please correct me if I am wrong. >> >> Despite all this I am off course open to other but similar easy ways to >> distribute (binary) apps to users. >> >>> -R >> >> kind regards, >> >> Lars
