ROX naming convention? [updated: rox-session, apps]

thegnu · 2005-02-10 21:17:08

I've seen a bit of discussion about rox the program and rox the group, and there are a few PKGBUILDs floating around the messageboard that have a groups=('rox') field.

What do people think would be a good idea as far as resolving this? I suggest changing rox to rox-filer, because according to rox.sf.net:

# What is ROX? -- a desktop based around ROX-Filer

and making the GROUP be rox, or to avoid confusion, rox-suite.

dtw · 2005-02-11 04:32:34

concur

thegnu · 2005-02-15 21:11:24

I also hate to suggest /opt/, but:

rox-session
rox-filer
rox-apps
rox-themes

it's kind of where we tend to put these things, isn't it?

The other option is /usr/share, but I don't like how the rox-system (a rox app) package plops itself right down into share, so we could do:
/usr/share/Apps/
/usr/share/icons
etc.

but the gnome-icons are in /usr/share/icons, and although they show up in the rox Options dialog, they don't work with rox-filer. I've downloaded repackaged icons, and they work. It might be a good idea to somehow repackage rox or the gnome-icons to resolve this? I guess I could deinstall the gnome icons.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Plus, for rox-system I think we need an out-of-the-box functional package for ROX-Lib and ROX-Clib. We definitely need them if we want to package other apps.

EDIT AGAIN: From Rox Wiki, about Lib Dirs:

They are not stored in the same place as application directories (~/Apps, /usr/local/apps, /usr/apps) but are stored in the same place as libraries (~/lib, /usr/local/lib, /usr/lib).

So /usr/apps could be the app dir, maybe?

SON OF EDIT: I'm going to be futzing around with getting a standard package set built, starting with rox-filer, rox-session, rox-lib, rox-clib, edit, and archive. Then I'll make myself a repo.

neri · 2005-02-16 00:17:49

FYI, I tried rox-session several times and it's just time to kick it. I went all the way from the (not working) C-Based package to the python stuff, even coped with python-ctypes (btw, I have a working PKGBUILD for it, anyone?) just to see that it stillrely on the gone libtop header. I think it'll never come back...
so forget about it. But I can contribute a working rox-archiver package. Oh, and we should let it go to /usr/share. Rox stuff is pretty much encapsulating itself by the design of that zero-install packages.

-neri

thegnu · 2005-02-16 19:08:30

neri wrote:

FYI, I tried rox-session several times and it's just time to kick it. I went all the way from the (not working) C-Based package to the python stuff, even coped with python-ctypes (btw, I have a working PKGBUILD for it, anyone?) just to see that it stillrely on the gone libtop header. I think it'll never come back...
so forget about it. But I can contribute a working rox-archiver package. Oh, and we should let it go to /usr/share. Rox stuff is pretty much encapsulating itself by the design of that zero-install packages.

First off,
[URL=http://img103.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img103&image=screen9ob.jpg] screen9ob.th.jpg [/URL]
and
Rox-session, Rox-libs, etc PKGBUILD
Rox stuff gives itself over to zero-install because it matches a RISC-like philosophy. But there's no reason not to package it. Rox-session works fine. I've never had it not work except for when I accidentally downloaded the deprecated version.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-02-10 21:17:08

ROX naming convention? [updated: rox-session, apps]

#2 2005-02-11 04:32:34

Re: ROX naming convention? [updated: rox-session, apps]

#3 2005-02-15 21:11:24

Re: ROX naming convention? [updated: rox-session, apps]

#4 2005-02-16 00:17:49

Re: ROX naming convention? [updated: rox-session, apps]

#5 2005-02-16 19:08:30

Re: ROX naming convention? [updated: rox-session, apps]

Board footer