Jannis Pohlmann info at
Mon Aug 15 14:12:50 CEST 2005

Wit Wilinski schrieb:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:39:19 +0200
> Jannis Pohlmann <info at> wrote:
>>  --
>>  That's the way we'd prefer. There'd be lots of advantages (goodies
>>  remain as sources, downloads are smaller, there's much lower effort in
>>  providing goodies to the goodies manager etc.)
> Well... if it'd be possible to _avoid_ downloading autoconf/automake
> data (especially the configure script) downloads would be even more
> light ;) What do You think about a common build system for all the
> goodies, without the need for autoconf/automake thing?
> Plugin tarballs could have a very simple internal structure (src/,
> images/, data/, po/ for example). The manager would check if necessary
> dependencies are satisfied, compile and link the sources, compile
> translations and install everything to appropriate directories. The
> tarball could contain some simple hints for the goodie-manager to tell
> it what to do (if the plugin needs some extra things)

That's going too far in my opinion. Of course downloads would be smaller
once again but this takes away some of the freedom goodie developers
currently have.

A goodie is, besides that it requires Xfce, a self-contained package
which includes build instructions. A goodie based on pyxfce e.g.
wouldn't have a configure-script for example. We could define three
build/installing stages in the information file like "configure", "make"
and "install" but the rest should be managed by the goodie, not by the
goodies manager.


  <install>make install</install>

  Of course, build options should be handled as well like it is done in
  InstallIt, too.

Just my 2 cents.

- Jannis

More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list