List Archive: gentoo-gnustep
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 10:27 -0700, Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
> Just as an update - those pointers were really useful and I was able to
> finalize ebuild after all (see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106890
> for finalized version).
I have some questions; see below ...
> However, just to stay on the "purist" side - using "inherit gnustep-2" as
> suggested in eclasses pulls in some dependancies that are not really needed
> (like gnustep-gui and some other) which is not very gentoo-like. Is there a
> plan to produce more modular eclasses to inherit from (I used "inherit
> gnustep" and "DEPEND=gnustep-base" initially but comments in gnustep class
> suggest that it's deprecated)?
You can ask one of the GNUstep developers -- why does the gnustep-2
eclass have a dependency for gnustep-back? Not all GNUstep-based
applications are GUI.
I have other questions/comments about your ebuild, which will help get
it accepted by the Gentoo devs:
* KEYWORDS should be ~x86/~amd64 until it has passed the testing phase,
* Use "cp -pr" instead of piping with tar
* Don't hard code the paths for "openapp" and "oolite.app" in your
wrapper script. If there is a working GNUstep installation, openapp
will be in the PATH, and the app will be found by openapp through
* Your DEPEND and RDEPEND are really confusing. Specifically:
- Why are the versions for stuff under x86 in RDEPEND, but not in
DEPEND? Doesn't amd64 need those minimum versions?
- Also, doesn't amd64 need x11 and gnustep-env?
Typing this now, it looks like mr_bones already made some comments on
bugzilla -- hopefully with that and this you can polish off the ebuild.
email@example.com mailing list