[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNUstep filesystem spec

From: Nicola Pero
Subject: Re: GNUstep filesystem spec
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:44:30 +0100 (BST)

> > I completely agree with you.
> > 
> > I've nothing against documenting a 'suggested' layout of where to
> > install servers/users dir, if we write it clearly that it's irrelevant
> > to GNUstep.
> > 
> > Maybe we could put servers/users dirs paths in an appendix to clarify
> > the difference between 'compulsory practice' (mounting the GNUstep
> > master server in the GNUstep network domain) and 'suggested practice'
> > (mounting servers/users dirs in some agreed path).
> I'd go further -- don't even create the network domain unless a tool,
> library, framework, or application wants to be installed there, and even
> then only create the directories needed for it.
> If it exists, use it.
> For that matter, don't create anything in Local either, again unless
> something gets installed there, because there's no need for empty
> directories just sitting around.

Thanks Jeff - I quite like your suggestion for the network directory - if
the network domain is to be mounted from a remote server, I suppose it
should not already exist as a directory on the local harddisk (else there
is a conflict), so we should not be creating it as a directory.

I'm also mildly in favour of removing creation of empty directories in

I see an advantage in creating them - that people can install
gnustep-make, then go into their /usr/GNUstep/ and learn how the
directories are organized, and where everything is going to be installed
... even if you have installed no Bundles and no Frameworks, by looking at
the directory layout you can see where they would be installed if you had.

I assume your point is that we could create all the dirs inside System,
but no dir inside Local.  People could still learn about the filesystem by
looking at System, where the directory layout will still be laid out in
full even if it's empty; Local instead, like User, would be left
completely empty and directories created in it only when needed.

I'm mildly in favour of this changes, but I'll wait for more comments
before doing them, in case someone has some clever comments to make.

reply via email to

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