On 27-Jan-04, at 17:15, Kevin Horton wrote:
At 18:51 -0800 26/1/04, Matthias Neeracher wrote:From: Darian Lanx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Martin Costabel wrote:
D. H=F6hn wrote:t
I do not quite understand why. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not
completely opposed, I just do not get why. We are good at something,
which is packaging Unix based applications.
There is a saying in german "Schuster bleib bei deinen Leisten" which
means as much as "Stick to what you are good at". I would suggest, tha=we leave the .app handling to others and concentrate on improving fink
To "others" like Ben Reed or what? Nobody is forced to make app bundles=
out of their fink packages. But there are app bundles that would greatly
enrich fink if they were available as fink packages
Why? Why would that enrich Fink? In what way?
Aqua based OpenOffice apps, for instance, or .app bundles for SDL based apps. Could you explain in what way NOT allowing .app bundle packages enriches fink currently?
If native KDE runs everything that KDE/X11 does and looks good, then I see no inherent value in KDE/X11, but as long as people are interested in the latter, the KDE/X11 package will find maintainers.
Finding maintainers is only the first challenge. The second challenge is getting someone to look at the package after it has been submitter to the package tracker. There are already 110 packages that have been submitted and are waiting for fink developers to review. Some of them have been there since May 2003 and have yet to even get a comment from a developer.
Clearly there are more packages being submitted than there are resources interested in reviewing them. This effectively means that the people who are reviewing and approving the packages have to make some priority decisions on which packages they should work on. People have gotten frustrated enough with the process that they have started putting up web pages where people can download .info files for packages that haven't made it through Fink's review process. If we dilute the efforts by adding .apps, this will only make the problem worse (assuming that this situation is seen as a problem).
Or perhaps the right answer is to simply say that the Fink team cannot attempt to package every possible application, and that resources will be focused on those packages that are seen as more important.
Then people like me could stop submitting minor packages that may never get reviewed and simply post the .info files on a web page for people to download themselves.
The submissions database is the perfect web page for them. For someone to decide to put them on another web page seems unwise , unless the package is not appropriate for Fink. For "minor" packages it seems fine for them to be unreviewed for a long time.
There is nothing stopping an experienced developer, that is not yet part of fink-core from reviewing the submission of a package that they are also interested in and then "reminding" fink-core. This serves two purposes:
1) should help to get the pkg into fink
2) should help fink-core to be able to review one's work as a reviewer (and also a submitter)
Possibly though the problem is one of developer sponsorship and mentoring.
Keep submitting those packages! Lloyd D Budd
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
