Re: Google Summer of Code

[Sebastian Reitenbach]

On Saturday, February 11, 2012 20:58 CET, Riccardo Mottola <address@hidden> 
wrote: 
 
> Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 09:42 CET, Fred Kiefer<address@hidden>  wrote:
> >
> >> On 07.02.2012 09:21, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 6, 2012 09:54 CET, Fred Kiefer<address@hidden>   
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Looks like GSoC 2012 was announced at FOSDEM (Did anybody notice?). Here
> >>>> is the timeline for it
> >>>> http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2012
> >>>>
> >>>> If GNUstep is interested we will have to come up with an application
> >>>> until the 9th oh March. We could either do this as a stand alone project
> >>>> (of course together with Etoile!) or under the GNU umbrella project as
> >>>> we did the last two years.
> >>>> I really would like to volunteer as a mentor again, I learned a lot from
> >>>> Niels during his project. But we should only invest any effort here if
> >>>> we see suitable students. Last year we were not able to attract such
> >>>> students and so the whole application to GSoC was a waste of time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please ask around, if any students you know are interested.
> >>> I don't know anyone specifically, but I think we should give some ideas 
> >>> what could be
> >>> done, and what would be good to have.
> >>>
> >>> For example, a lot of applications in GAP should be checked if still work 
> >>> with latest releases,
> >>> or could be enhanced with new features. Maybe a good job for a beginner 
> >>> with basic
> >>> objective-c skills, and just want to learn, starting from reading others 
> >>> code, and enhancing
> >>> existing applications, before sometime starting an own application.
> >> This may be a bit too unspecific to be accepted as a GSoC project. We
> >> should turn it into something more specific as for example, get
> >> FlexiSheet fully implemented :-)
> > ah, OK, probably better then. I don't know what is OK for google, and what 
> > not.
> >
> >
> >>> Another thing I'd really like to have is some more cross desktop 
> >>> integration, for example,
> >>> allowing .desktop files, used in KDE and others,  to work. I'd really 
> >>> like to define Firefox or
> >>> something similar as my default browser. (until Vespucci is production 
> >>> ready ;)
> >> We already once had a Google Summer of Code student to work on cross
> >> desktop integration. Sadly not much came from that.
> >> I remember writing .desktop support ages ago. The file specification may
> >> have changed in between, most certainly it has, but it should be really
> >> easy to update our file generation to match the current standard. What
> >> is currently broken?
> > Well, I have a couple of .desktop files around on my GWorkspace Destop. 
> > Double clicking
> > them, doesn't do anything. I'd expect them to start the application 
> > configured in Exec=, or open the
> > URL from URL=, and use the icon defined in Icon= ...
> > but nothing happens when I click on such icon.
> >
> >> As for specifying a default browser, this should be as easy as to write
> >> a GNUstep wrapper, that is just a .plist file and to copy it to where
> >> make_services will find it. There must already be a lot of these
> >> wrappers out there, where do we collect them? Maybe we should set up
> >> some space in our source code repository to collect them?
> > They are in GWorkspace apps_wrappers subdirectory. But this approach 
> > generally has a flaw:
> > For how many applications do we want to create wrappers, when/where do we 
> > stop? ;)
> > We obviously cannot do so for every application. Further, the paths to the 
> > application can be on
> > different places on different OS, for example /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin 
> > ...
> >
> > On the other hand, many applications install a .desktop file in 
> > /usr/local/share/applications/
> > (at least which is the path for me on OpenBSD), and icons too. Packages 
> > that do that then run
> > update-desktop-database from the desktop-file-utils package on install. 
> > Afterwards it shows
> > up in the users menu, under the defined categories.
> >
> > IIRC, the Makefiles support creation of .desktop files, from the info taken 
> > from the App bundle.
> >
> > AFAIK, there doesn't exist something the other way around, allowing other 
> > application to create
> > an App Wrapper automatically. Even if that would exist, you'd still have to 
> > get others to make use of
> > it, which I think is then the harder part.
> >
> > I'd also really like to have an applications menu in GWorkspace, built from 
> > the information from those
> > .desktop files in /usr/local/share/applications, that would allow me to 
> > browse all installed applications
> > and just start them from the menu ;)
> I don't know about that. I don't want an application menu in GWorkspace. 
> An app-icon however could handle that, click-opening with some fast 
> options including a search field for example.
> Perhaps it could somehow query NSWorkspace for registered apps, this 
> woul include applications and wrappers of course.
> How to integrate this smoothly in the UI is a mystery. I'd see it 
> initially as an extension or an add-on to the "Fiend". I know I don't 
> like most interfaces aorund currently, but I don't know how to make it 
> better, what the most "openstep" way would be to deal with the load of apps.

For the Apps menu entry in GWorkspace, I thought about the following:
In the Info-gnustep.plist, there could be a new key added for example: 
AppMenu = "Network/Chat"

Then the menu entry could be added under a place like "All Applications" -> 
"Network" -> "Chat" -> Application Name
Having such a menu, could be even a default maybe, so if you don't like it, you 
won't get it to see ;)


> > Supporting this really standard stuff would prevent us from 
> > creating/maintaining a truckload of
> > Apps Wrappers. I actually created some of those apps wrappers for about 20 
> > or so applications
> > but Riccardo refused to add them to the Apps wrappers, he said, this is not 
> > a kitchen sink, and
> > it should only contain really common used apps. Which I understand and is 
> > fine with me.
> > But on the other side, creating and maintaining own apps wrappers, is also 
> > a bit cumbersome.
> >
> Exactly. AN alternative would be to start a GAP repository where to dump 
> dozens and dozens of ready-made wrappers. These still need to be 
> customized by packagers due to different names (ooffice/soffice or 
> firefox/iceape) and locations.

Shall I take care of this? I'd take the Apps_wrapper directory from GWorkspace 
as a start.
I'd review those, since I found some broken there some time ago.
I have about 10 or 20 apps I use more or less often, that are missing in the 
Apps_wrapper directory
from GWorkspace. I'd love if I could install those just from a tarball, and 
don't need to take care
of them by myself ;) Whoever thinks his favourite app is missing, can send a 
wrapper, and we/I could
add it to the repo.

cheers,
Sebastian

> 
> Riccardo