[Fink-devel] Re: Ideas for stuff outside the Fink tree (Was: Re: [Fink-devel]Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ] FinkCommander package)

At 22:45 Uhr -0400 14.04.2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: >On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 07:17 PM, Max Horn wrote: > >>Not really. I understand what you explain above. But it doesn't >>justify packaging the .app in the first place, it only describes an >>ugly (no offense meant) way to hack around a pro

Ideas for stuff outside the Fink tree (Was: Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ] FinkCommander package)

On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 07:17 PM, Max Horn wrote: > Not really. I understand what you explain above. But it doesn't justify > packaging the .app in the first place, it only describes an ugly (no > offense meant) way to hack around a problem that stems from the fact > that we abuse Fink/

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ]FinkCommander package

At 16:15 Uhr -0700 14.04.2002, Steven Burr wrote: > On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 10:44 AM, Martin Costabel wrote: > >>Disclaimer: I am not and have not been speaking in any way for the >>author of FinkCommander, Steven J. Burr. And I have nothing to do with >>the development of FC. As far as I k

[Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ]FinkCommander package

At 18:37 Uhr -0400 14.04.2002, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: > >>Now I'd like to hear what others say. Why is it so important that we >>have a FinkCommand package? Why is a GUI so important? Do people that >>use stuff like Fink really have to have a GUI, for things that they >>have from the command line

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ]FinkCommander package

At 17:58 Uhr -0400 14.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >I'd like to broaden the discussion a bit, by introducing another class of >.app's which I think we might have in the future: Foo.app which provides >an Aqua interface to some open-source package (which itself depends on >many other packages)

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ] FinkCommander package

On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 10:44 AM, Martin Costabel wrote: Disclaimer: I am not and have not been speaking in any way for the author of FinkCommander, Steven J. Burr. And I have nothing to do with the development of FC. As far as I know, this is his work alone. My only relation to FinkCommand

[Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ] FinkCommander package

Max Horn wrote: > I firmly believe that one thing that makes Fink strong is its focus > on various key properties. Dilluting them is not going to help us. > One of these properties is that we stick as much as sanely possible > in /sw, and we package *unix* applications (except for a few > auxillar

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ] FinkCommander package

On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 10:58 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: > I don't know how to solve the problem of users moving a Foo.app around, > but I have an idea about it (which you are welcome to shoot holes in). couldn't we just store an alias reference somewhere? -- Finlay ___

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ] FinkCommander package

I'd like to broaden the discussion a bit, by introducing another class of .app's which I think we might have in the future: Foo.app which provides an Aqua interface to some open-source package (which itself depends on many other packages) that can be installed by Fink. In this case, I would argue

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ]FinkCommander package

At 19:44 Uhr +0200 14.04.2002, Martin Costabel wrote: >Max, > >thanks for continuing this here. I am sure you understand that this is >nothing personal, we are all trying to find out what is best for the >future of Fink. And please take my slightly too sharp arguments as I am >taking yours: as an

Re: [Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ] FinkCommander package

Max, thanks for continuing this here. I am sure you understand that this is nothing personal, we are all trying to find out what is best for the future of Fink. And please take my slightly too sharp arguments as I am taking yours: as an effort to bring the discussion to the point more quickly.

[Fink-devel] Re: [ fink-Package Submissions-543612 ] FinkCommander package

I think it is of interest for more people, so instead of continuing this on a tracker item I post my biiig reply to fink-devel: Martin, 1) I didn't say it is the same as OroborOSX, i just mentioned it as an