You are not logged in.

#1 2005-01-24 17:44:04

Mr Green
Forum Fellow
From: U.K.
Registered: 2003-12-21
Posts: 5,893
Website

Bluefish battered & fried

Bluefish 1.0 is this package only for Gnome users ????


Mr Green

Offline

#2 2005-01-24 18:53:14

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

it shouldn't be. if there are strict Gnome depends then something is not right.

(there were gnome depends when I last wanted to install it)


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#3 2005-01-24 20:04:56

JGC
Developer
Registered: 2003-12-03
Posts: 1,664

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

gnome-vfs is required to make it usable for FTP file transfers or direct SMB transfers. The new version also took libgnomeui on my system, which is optional. Since we already have a lib in /opt/gnome prefix, you need gnome-common stuff already and I put the package in a /opt/gnome prefix too.

Offline

#4 2005-01-24 20:24:00

Mr Green
Forum Fellow
From: U.K.
Registered: 2003-12-21
Posts: 5,893
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

The latest version is Bluefish 1.0. This is the preferred version. It requires gtk version 2.0 or higher, libpcre 3.0 or higher and (optional) libaspell 0.50 or higher for spell checking and (also optional) gnome-vfs for remote files.

optional .....

no problem just built it without ... wink


Mr Green

Offline

#5 2005-01-24 20:34:39

JGC
Developer
Registered: 2003-12-03
Posts: 1,664

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

I would rather have an extra gnome dependency than losing the ability to directly edit from FTP or SMB. That's why we have (and always had) gnome-vfs as dependency.

I could check the libgnomeui thing for the next version, since it's a dependency that isn't stated in the documentation at all.

Offline

#6 2005-01-24 20:53:10

oscar
Member
From: Kiruna, Sweden
Registered: 2004-08-13
Posts: 457

Re: Bluefish battered & fried


To err is human... to really foul up requires the root password.

Offline

#7 2005-01-24 21:02:09

Mr Green
Forum Fellow
From: U.K.
Registered: 2003-12-21
Posts: 5,893
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

Thanks oscar  lol

I was more talking about the Arch package but after reading docs on bluefish site I understand now why gnome-vfs is used ...

I did look at pkgbuild on forum but after seeing Arch package I went for the soft option

No worries all sorted now  wink

(bluefish rocks!)


Mr Green

Offline

#8 2005-01-24 21:29:06

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

JGC wrote:

I would rather have an extra gnome dependency than losing the ability to directly edit from FTP or SMB. That's why we have (and always had) gnome-vfs as dependency.

I could check the libgnomeui thing for the next version, since it's a dependency that isn't stated in the documentation at all.

The problem comes when people who don't want gnome have to suck on a whole pile of GNOME packages just to have an editor. While I won't argue it is nice to have the ftp capabilitites it is just not worth all of that horrid gnome stuff that vfs and libgnomeui haul with it.

for the record I was so pissed when bluefish was gnomified that i plain stopped coding html and php in linux. I liked that app and I did not want the bother of maintaining it locally when I had an app for OS that was just as nice as bluefish.

I am not saying to change it but I wanted you to understand that while some may like adding all the option it comes at a cost too.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#9 2005-01-24 21:59:29

cactus
Taco Eater
From: t͈̫̹ͨa͖͕͎̱͈ͨ͆ć̥̖̝o̫̫̼s͈̭̱̞͍̃!̰
Registered: 2004-05-25
Posts: 4,622
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

I really like kate as an editor. I just really wish it could be decoupled from kde.
Same issue, I guess. Just to get kate, I have to haul in ALOT of other stuff that I really don't use/don't want. It is nice to be able to edit files directly (and securely) via sftp helper, but I readily do without that to just get the editor standalone.
As a result, I am forcing myself to use vi more. Slowly weaning myself from my favorite editor.


"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍

Offline

#10 2005-01-24 22:12:49

oscar
Member
From: Kiruna, Sweden
Registered: 2004-08-13
Posts: 457

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

cactus wrote:

I really like kate as an editor. I just really wish it could be decoupled from kde.
Same issue, I guess. Just to get kate, I have to haul in ALOT of other stuff that I really don't use/don't want. It is nice to be able to edit files directly (and securely) via sftp helper, but I readily do without that to just get the editor standalone.
As a result, I am forcing myself to use vi more. Slowly weaning myself from my favorite editor.

I've been a openbox/gtk zealot for a long time now, but a friend convinced me to try KDE (I haven't done that since...my redhat 7.3 days!), and I got stuck.
KDE isn't slow, it doesn't draw that much resources (<=gnome) and it's really fast - but first and foremost - it's USER FRIENDLY!
Not user friendly as in "we remove all dangerous buttons", but more like "this software is written by nerds for nerds" - it's like when I had my first gentoo-speed-placebo-effect, KDE gives me a productivity boost - so instead of spending time configuring my OpenBox to do things as I like, KDE have done it for me, and I can concentrate on my work big_smile


To err is human... to really foul up requires the root password.

Offline

#11 2005-01-24 22:33:51

cactus
Taco Eater
From: t͈̫̹ͨa͖͕͎̱͈ͨ͆ć̥̖̝o̫̫̼s͈̭̱̞͍̃!̰
Registered: 2004-05-25
Posts: 4,622
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

I do like kde. For the most part. That is how I discovered kate in the first place.
The reason I departed from using kde on most systems was twofold:
1) I had an underpowered system for a while, and both kde and gnome were dogged.
2) I used redhat for a while, and their support for kde has always been absolutely horrid. Early Fedora was not much better.

Maybe now with Arch, and my faster system, I will try and give KDE a go again. It really is a nice environment. I like the network tranparency aspect (both kate and konqueror can use sftp umong other protocols).


"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍

Offline

#12 2005-01-24 22:38:52

JGC
Developer
Registered: 2003-12-03
Posts: 1,664

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

sarah31 wrote:
JGC wrote:

I would rather have an extra gnome dependency than losing the ability to directly edit from FTP or SMB. That's why we have (and always had) gnome-vfs as dependency.

I could check the libgnomeui thing for the next version, since it's a dependency that isn't stated in the documentation at all.

The problem comes when people who don't want gnome have to suck on a whole pile of GNOME packages just to have an editor. While I won't argue it is nice to have the ftp capabilitites it is just not worth all of that horrid gnome stuff that vfs and libgnomeui haul with it.

for the record I was so pissed when bluefish was gnomified that i plain stopped coding html and php in linux. I liked that app and I did not want the bother of maintaining it locally when I had an app for OS that was just as nice as bluefish.

I am not saying to change it but I wanted you to understand that while some may like adding all the option it comes at a cost too.

If I could, I would add gnome-vfs as optional dependency. I've looked in the code for libgnomeui, and I don't think it's an addition that makes much sense, so I could disable it without problems.

Why is everyone hating gnome stuff? Does it matter to have some gnome libs on a system? I have to have QT and KDE stuff on my system to maintain packages like DBUS and I also don't complain about it (I'm actually the one that added QT bindings to DBUS tongue). Having gnome libs on your system doesn't wreck your KDE or openbox or XFCE, so why would you throw away an editor because it switched to something that's in use by gnome.

Offline

#13 2005-01-25 00:43:10

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

Some of us don't want gnome and/or kde because we don't want it. The last time I had Arch installed i managed to not have KDE or GNOME on my system which is exactly what I wanted. Unfortunately though I could find no way around having qt installed.

I personally despise KDE (and for the most part qt and java) and I did not want a good deal of the gnome packages just to run a small app like bluefish.  It defeated my attempts to have a nice light system.

I have been impartial to GNOME for a long time but just did not want any of it on my system.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#14 2005-01-25 01:13:17

cactus
Taco Eater
From: t͈̫̹ͨa͖͕͎̱͈ͨ͆ć̥̖̝o̫̫̼s͈̭̱̞͍̃!̰
Registered: 2004-05-25
Posts: 4,622
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

mmm...yes. It also seems very wasteful to have an entire wm taking up space on my system, if I only want to use one "small" app that cannot be decoupled from it. It is enough to make someone search for a new app to fill the void.

Much like being forced to use MS because you have to use MS Outlook for work, or something like that..
*spits*

I hope I never have to say that..

Anyway, I have nothing against KDE (I used to use it, and reallly liked it) or gnome (I use it now, and mostly like it) or any of the other wm. I just wish they were more "wm" than "application platforms"...


"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍

Offline

#15 2005-01-25 09:22:05

Mr Green
Forum Fellow
From: U.K.
Registered: 2003-12-21
Posts: 5,893
Website

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

Would someone check that bluefish loads gnome-vfs via pacman (if not installed) ....

I have mailed Bluefish & they tell me that future versions will require gnome-vfs

Sorry to go on but I want people to try Bluefish ....

$ pacman -Qi bluefish
Name           : bluefish
Version        : 1.0-1
Groups         : None
Packager       : Arch Linux (http://www.archlinux.org)
URL            : http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/
License        :
Architecture   : i686
Size           : 5693138
Build Date     : Mon Jan 24 15:08:16 2005 UTC
Install Date   : Tue Jan 25 09:19:21 2005 UTC
Install Script : Yes
Reason:        : explicitly installed
Provides       : None
Depends On     : aspell libgnomeui pcre
Required By    : None
Conflicts With : None
Description    : Programmer's HTML editor written using GTK

[mrgreen@Arch ~]$ bluefish
bluefish: error while loading shared libraries: libgnomevfs-2.so.0: cannot openshared object file: No such file or directory

Mr Green

Offline

#16 2005-01-25 10:38:17

JGC
Developer
Registered: 2003-12-03
Posts: 1,664

Re: Bluefish battered & fried

gnome-vfs is in the /opt/gnome prefix, which is added to your profile by gnome-common. You have to source /etc/profile.d/gnome.sh everytime you want to launch bluefish, until you logout and login again.

gnome-vfs is taken as dependency via libgnomeui -> libbonoboui -> gnome-vfs.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB