[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.

From: Pascal Bourguignon
Subject: Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:47:42 +0100 (CET)

> From: David Relson <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:31:32 -0500
> Having read the commentary on the GnuStep File Hierarchy, here're my 2 cents:
> Put GNUstep.sh and GNUstep.csh in Tools.  Having them in Makefiles is odd.
> Tools is the place for other miscellaneous scripts (assuming they exist - a 
> fact I'm too lazy to verify).
> I prefer "Apps" to "Applications" as a directory name.  It's close to the 
> app wrapper extension, i.e. .app, and it's the name used in OpenStep.

Let's stay  consistent. When the user  will have learned  that to load
the GNUstep environment from .../Tools instead of .../Toos, he will go
naturally to .../Applications and not to .../Apps.

Note that we're not speaking about an CLI environment with access thru
a 300 b/s  teletype. We're speaking about a  GUI environment where the
users  will  only  have to  click  on  some  icons with  readable  and
understandable names, not cryptic abreviations.

The advanced "users" can always run: 

      ln -s Applications apps ; echo apps >> .hidden
      ln -s Tools bin         ; echo bin  >> .hidden
      export PATH=$(echo `pwd`/apps/*.app|tr ' ' :):`pwd`/bin:$PATH

if they need to run applications and tools from the CLI.

__Pascal_Bourguignon__              (o_ Software patents are endangering
()  ASCII ribbon against html email //\ the computer industry all around
/\  and Microsoft attachments.      V_/ the world http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
1962:DO20I=1.100  2001:my($f)=`fortune`;  http://petition.eurolinux.org/

Version: 3.1
GCS/IT d? s++:++(+++)>++ a C+++  UB+++L++++$S+X++++>$ P- L+++ E++ W++
N++ o-- K- w------ O- M++$ V PS+E++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5? X+ R !tv b++(+)
DI+++ D++ G++ e+++ h+(++) r? y---? UF++++

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]