What is this crap?

tecknojunky · Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:03 am Post subject: What is this crap?

Now, to have file-roler, you must have Nautilus?

Crap

Bye bye file-roler... Until the Gnome guys makes a separate nautilus-extension package, I will now fight bloats like I fight spam.

If I want things pushed down my throat, I'll use MS-Windows.

My rant is done.
_________________
(7 of 9) Installing star-trek/species-8.4.7.2::talax.

hw-tph · Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 11:10 am Post subject:

If you're done ranting, why don't you look into the dependancies and read up on the Gentoo Ebuild Howto?

Håkan

tecknojunky · Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:17 pm Post subject:

If you can build file-roler without Nautilus, tell me how, because I tried, and I ended up puting >=app-arch/file-roler-2.10.0 in /etc/portage/package.mask instead.

I will now send an email to the file-roler developpers and tell them they can stop coding new releases since I wont know about any of them because the package is now mask on my boxes.

(man, is that cat uggly or what?)
_________________
(7 of 9) Installing star-trek/species-8.4.7.2::talax.

neuron · Advocate Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 2371

lotw · Guru Joined: 09 Jan 2005 Posts: 342 Location: Palmdale

tecknojunky · Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:58 pm Post subject:

Lokheed · Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject:

You can try XArchive: http://www.gnomefiles.org/app.php?soft_id=972

Only requirement is GTK+
_________________
You're not afraid of the dark are you?

tecknojunky · Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:16 pm Post subject:

Lokheed · Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:59 am Post subject:

Shadow Skill · Veteran Joined: 04 Dec 2004 Posts: 1023

Having File-roller depend on nautilus is like having Rarlab decide to make Winrar depend on the AbcommanderXP[One of the best Windows programs I have ever come across, a damned shame its not free or at least OSS.] Filemanager, which in Windows terms would probably mean a much larger binary not to mention the added annoyance of having yet another file manager installed. I can see how the OP would be annoyed at this development.

For the record I count six file managers installed on my machine right now for no real reason, probably should only be three since I use nautilus when I am in gtk based DE's and Konqueror/Krusader when I am in KDE or need to do some more complicated batch file movement in which case Krusader owns.

Hello there Lockheed.
_________________
Ware wa mutekinari.
Wa ga kage waza ni kanau mono nashi.
Wa ga ichigeki wa mutekinari.

"First there was nothing, so the lord gave us light. There was still nothing, but at least you could see it."

Gentree · Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:11 am Post subject:

I quite agree with techno here.

The more these big desktops "advance" the more they seem to think they have to imitiate windaube.

I see no reason why a file compression tool needs to depend on Nautilus. The two functions are quite separate and they should remain that way.

_________________
Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86

Apopatos · Guru Joined: 17 Oct 2004 Posts: 512 Location: Hellas

I use gnome with nautilus so never bothered if file roller needs it or not, I find much more important the new feature with which you can now open *.7za files (cool :wink:

), though I have a small problem.
Although I have associated 7za files to open with file-roller when I open file-roller and browse my files, it doesn't recognise the 7za files as commpressed ones but I can view it only through the "all files option"

i92guboj · Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:35 am Post subject:

Gentree · Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:

Likewise.

Looks like a very good front-end, good readme, a doddle to install (even tho' an ebuild would be nice).

Just a shame it's based on gtk, I really hate the way the recent file browers works. Pretty but unergonomic as hell.

Thanks for the tip.

_________________
Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86

widremann · Veteran Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 1314

If you're so afraid of bloat, just read the man page for tar and you can get all of the functionality without installing any extra software. Although I can't really understand your concern unless you have a 300 megabyte harddrive from back in the day and truly don't have space to install one more little graphical application.

i92guboj · Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:17 pm Post subject:

widremann · Veteran Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Posts: 1314

Come on. You can fit a whole Gentoo install on a 5 GB harddisk, which is nothing these days (don't even know if you can buy one anymore). On my laptop, I use up a total of 6 GB including my home directory (with lots of mp3s). I have a full KDE install, plus a full XFCE install, eclipse, openoffice, several versions of firefox, complete KOffice installed, as well as a bunch of other graphical apps that don't fall neatly into one of those categories. If nautilus is going to throw you over the top, just plop down 50 bucks or less and get a real harddrive.

i92guboj · Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:55 pm Post subject:

You dont seem to understand. Even in a 300 mb drive I doubt nautilus size would be a problem, qt size would not be also, and that is what most gnome users use as first weapon when arguing against a qt installation to use k3b. The problem is that some people are not going to use it, so, why compile it?

Another possible problem (dont know because I did not tried the nautilized version of file-roller, is the memory footprint. Dont really know for sure but I suppose it will be much bigger, if it really uses nautilus for anything. Are you going also to tell us to buy more ram?

It is something simple to understand. File-roller worked always without nautilus, and there is nothing substancial regarding new features (as far as I know, let me know if Im wrong) to tie that hard file-roller to nautilus. The app that I linked here can do exactly the same, using exactly the same programs as backends, and is only 128kb (the tarball, the exec is even smaller), looks well, with nice gtk2 integration and no less features than file roller (at least nothing substancial that I can notice). The only direct dep is gtk2. For me the choice is clear, thought, of course, everyone is free to emerge what s/he wants.