AL gnustep-core implementation misses gnustep-back

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AL gnustep-core implementation misses gnustep-back

LoneVVolf
In the recent repo clean up operation gnustep-back was dropped to AUR.

I have maintained the oolite package when it was still in AUR and
remember plenty of problems with running oolite against faulty /
incomplete gnustep-core implementations .

The gnustep upstream website [1] lists gnustep-back as a required
package for every gnustep install .

The ANNOUNCE file in gnustep-back source code [2] states gnustep-gui &
gnustep-back are 2 components of the display system used by gnustep .

I feel that removing gnustep-back from gnustep-core group goes against
arch linux policy of staying as close to upstream as possible.

Lone_Wolf







[1]
http://wwwmain.gnustep.org/resources/downloads.php?site=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.gnustep.org%2Fpub%2Fgnustep%2F#core

[2] ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/gnustep/core/gnustep-back-0.25.1.tar.gz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AL gnustep-core implementation misses gnustep-back

arch general mailing list-2
On 2018-01-09 13:04, LoneVVolf wrote:

> In the recent repo clean up operation gnustep-back was dropped to AUR.
>
> I have maintained the oolite package when it was still in AUR and
> remember plenty of problems with running oolite against faulty /
> incomplete gnustep-core implementations .
>
> The gnustep upstream website [1] lists gnustep-back as a required
> package for every gnustep install .
>
> The ANNOUNCE file in gnustep-back source code [2] states gnustep-gui &
> gnustep-back are 2 components of the display system used by gnustep .
>
> I feel that removing gnustep-back from gnustep-core group goes against
> arch linux policy of staying as close to upstream as possible.
>
> Lone_Wolf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://wwwmain.gnustep.org/resources/downloads.php?site=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.gnustep.org%2Fpub%2Fgnustep%2F#core
>
>
> [2] ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/gnustep/core/gnustep-back-0.25.1.tar.gz

Yes, looks like it shouldn't have been removed. However all GNUstep
packages are unmaintained, so I'd rather drop it all with oolite to AUR
than keep in half-zombie state in repositories.

Sven, any opinion on this?

Bartłomiej
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AL gnustep-core implementation misses gnustep-back

arch general mailing list-2
On 2018-01-09 13:32, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> I'd like to keep maintaining oolite if it's not too much work but I'm
> definitely not going to touch GNUstep stuff. So if no one is going to
> maintain GNUstep in official repos, we should drop oolite.

I'm going to drop oolite and remaining GNUstep packages on Monday,
unless someone adopts the latter.

Bartłomiej
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AL gnustep-core implementation misses gnustep-back

LoneVVolf
On 11-01-18 15:48, Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-general wrote:

> On 2018-01-09 13:32, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
>> I'd like to keep maintaining oolite if it's not too much work but I'm
>> definitely not going to touch GNUstep stuff. So if no one is going to
>> maintain GNUstep in official repos, we should drop oolite.
>
> I'm going to drop oolite and remaining GNUstep packages on Monday,
> unless someone adopts the latter.
>
> Bartłomiej
>
Not the answer I was hoping for, but if noone steps up that seems the
best option.

LW
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AL gnustep-core implementation misses gnustep-back

arch general mailing list-2
In reply to this post by LoneVVolf
I'm not a trusted User, but I would offer maintaining the gnustep packages
in the AUR

Regards
Marc

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 23:44:20 +0100
> From: LoneVVolf <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] AL gnustep-core implementation misses
>         gnustep-back
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 11-01-18 15:48, Bart?omiej Piotrowski via arch-general wrote:
> > On 2018-01-09 13:32, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> >> I'd like to keep maintaining oolite if it's not too much work but I'm
> >> definitely not going to touch GNUstep stuff. So if no one is going to
> >> maintain GNUstep in official repos,?we should drop oolite.
> >
> > I'm going to drop oolite and remaining GNUstep packages on Monday,
> > unless someone adopts the latter.
> >
> > Bart?omiej
> >
> Not the answer I was hoping for, but if noone steps up that seems the
> best option.
>
> LW
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AL gnustep-core implementation misses gnustep-back

arch general mailing list-2
In reply to this post by arch general mailing list-2
On 2018-01-11 15:48, Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-general wrote:

> On 2018-01-09 13:32, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
>> I'd like to keep maintaining oolite if it's not too much work but I'm
>> definitely not going to touch GNUstep stuff. So if no one is going to
>> maintain GNUstep in official repos, we should drop oolite.
>
> I'm going to drop oolite and remaining GNUstep packages on Monday,
> unless someone adopts the latter.
>
> Bartłomiej
>

With green light from Sven and no eager adopters,
gnustep-{base,gui,make} and oolite are in AUR now.

Bartłomiej