Re: Proposal question.

[Tim Harrison]

H.-R. Oberhage wrote:

> In article <3CD95297.2040807@linuxstep.org> you wrote:
> : 1.  no one is interested in utilising this proposal
> : 2.  it's so long, people are still trying to get to the end of it.
>
> No, no, no - and yes, yes, yes: I am interested in it and I did post an
> article about that to the gnu.gnustep.discuss newsgroup. I saw at least
> two other postings concerning it, there. The first time you posted
> the suggestion (some months ago), the thread was even bigger.

True, there were a few replies to the original posting, and I made many 
modifications from those responses.  However, since reposting a modified 
version, I've heard next to nothing, and there hasn't been any 
"official" response from anyone on the GNUstep Project.  I certainly 
appreciated the modification of "Apps" to "Applications", don't get me 
wrong.  However, there is much more to the proposal than just the names 
of the directories.  It's about having a clearly defined, documented, 
and "standard" structure.  I've tried my best to not be influenced by my 
need for LinuxSTEP integration, and paid close attention to how the 
proposal would work on other systems as well.

One of my biggest beefs with GNUstep (not the team, but the environment) 
is the lack of clear, concise, and GNUstep-specific documentation.  It's 
all well and good to say "Look at Apple's docs", but this is not Cocoa. 
 This is GNUstep.

Pardon my ranting. :)  I'm under some pressure to get LinuxSTEP 0.2.5 
released, and I want to tie up some loose ends before it is available. 
One of those loose ends is GNUstep integration (as the LinuxSTEP Package 
Manager is written using gnustep-base).

> Did you 'receive' the postings?

Unfortunately, I cannot recall (or have in my saved mail) receiving your 
responses. :/  Would you be so kind as to repost them (either to the 
mailing list, or privately to me)?  I would highly appreciate that.


--

Tim Harrison
tim@linuxstep.org
http://www.linuxstep.org/