[GEM Development] [GEM-DEV] GEM 32

[Shane Martin Coughlan]

On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 19:29 -0600, Michael Henry wrote:
> I do want to apologize Shane because I did think the OpenGem was your
> project. Most of my ideas was that way. 
> However, OpenGEM does provide a platform which is what's needed in any
> project. For instance if I wrote a program and the libraries it used
> was automatically included in OpenGEM, that makes it easier for
> consumers. It just burns me that even using apt-get, there could be
> some dependency issues.

Hello all.  Shane who made OpenGEM here.

Well, I've not had enough time to contribute anything to GEM for a
while.  But here are my notes about what makes sense going forward.

First of all, the basic GEM tools do make a useful platform.  

OpenGEM 6 focused on making that platform light and coherent, and making
sure that the code available all had clear licensing (some of  the older
apps were GIVEN as GPL by Caldera, but the binary format was the only
existing version left, so they need decompilation and reconstruction to
make a useful source/binary distribution).

A new release of the most current GEM tools in a platform format would
be relatively simply.  It was mostly done with the OpenGEM 7
distribution.  I can put that together if everyone who makes the latest
versions of the things sends me the desktop, gds(?) and so on.  John, I
guess most of this is on your site?

Shane