Re: GNUstep on Windows, "desktop" bundles...

[Larry Cow]

Alex Perez a écrit :

> gdomap definately needs to be servicized if it is going to be used (alexms 
> patch removes this requirement) because it requires administrative privs 
> to bind to ports. gpbs and gdnc should not be because they are per-user.
>  
That is true. My mistake.

> IMHO GNUstep should be installed into C:\Program Files\GNUstep. People do 
> not install it there because of the whole "space issue" but that space 
> issue is rendered irrelevant because NTFS retains the old 8-char 
> filenames. With this in mind, installing to C:\Progra~1\GNUstep is 
> perfectly safe.
>  
Yeah, it should work, but I can't help considering it a hack. But 
anyway, the filesystem question is important, since we still don't know 
how gnustep should see it. Should it see the root as Desktop? as user's 
directory? as a special dir containing the different drives?

> Yes, nvidia and ATI have proven time and time again that simplicity of 
> downloads are generally more important than size these days.
>  
It depends on the size. If you need to package a full mingw installation 
(with MSys and all), GNUstep-core's source code and a bunch of binaries, 
it may become larger than expected. Anyway, we can't really discuss that 
matter without measuring it :)

> I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Special". Can you be more 
> specific?
Well, we need theme support, that was the most important part of the 
sentence. We can't offer to maintain two different source trees for the 
two platforms.

> I agree completely, but it probably shouldn't be the default.
>  
Which should be the default? The "integrated" one, or the nextish one? 
For me, it's the first one...

> yes exactly. the problem is that the pasteboard paradigms might not match 
> up completely. Actually I think the windows pasteboard and gnustep 
> pasteboard paradigm are more in line with each other than the X 
> pasteboard paradigm is with the OpenStep one is.
>  
That's interesting.

> I dont think we've ever supported win98. Win98 is not worth the effort, 
> and you probably agree.
>  
Actually, I'd say he isn't worth anything :)

--
Larry Cow