[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Totally Gormless
From: |
Nicola Pero |
Subject: |
Re: Totally Gormless |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:44:52 +0100 (BST) |
> > PS: My original idea was to simply include GNUstep.conf in shell scripts.
> > I
> > hope the idea has been kept in the sense that the GNUstep.conf syntax is
> > compatible with sh syntax. If so, and if we can just include GNUstep.conf
> > in shell scripts (and makefiles!) instead of running C tools, that would
> > be as fast and simple as you can get it. :-)
>
> Definitely -- as long as the other variables in that file like
> "SYS_APPS" and all that don't start to pollute a user's environment.
> No reason they would have to, of course, if that file gets source
> while launching apps, not at a user login, like GNUstep.conf.
OK - I had a quick look and I'm really impressed by all the advances in
gnustep-base with respect to paths! Excellent job guys :-)
But ... when I looked at the names and started to think how to integrate
with gnustep-make my hair went straight up ;-)
I'd say that --
Variable names those should be GNUSTEP_SYS_APPS, not just SYS_APPS ... so
that we properly use a GNUSTEP_* namespace for all our GNUstep variables!
(key requirement if we want to be able to just include GNUstep.conf in
shell scripts and makefiles)
Also -- maybe it should be GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_APPS, not GNUSTEP_SYS_APPS ?
I'm also a bit unsure about the name 'APPS' ... it seems to be referring
to stuff like /bin ... where we usually install tools, not apps. Not sure
where an .app would go ... presumably into GNUSTEP_PLATFORM_RESOURCES ?
Shall we maybe let the user choose where they want apps to go, and if they
want them to go in the same directory as tools or not ? So we could
presumably have GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_APPS, GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_TOOLS etc. but we make
sure there is a simple subset (maybe 3 or 4) defaults that need to be set,
everything else would be deduced by those (unless optionally, special
settings for those are used).
Btw, how did we choose the names 'SYS' / 'PLATFORM' / 'PLATFORM_LOCAL'
btw? It looks like the 'SYS' is missing the resource directory, which is
essential to us (isn't it ? bundles / apps / frameworks will go in
there). Also, 'SYS' seems to map to where usually the core Unix stuff is
installed -- and where we won't install anything! Presumably we actually
want to have SYSTEM --> /usr/, LOCAL --> /usr/local/, and leave / alone ?
Except for maybe /etc/GNUstep that would map to some GNUstep system
preferences directory ?
In other words, can we reduce SYS/PLATFORM/PLATFORM_LOCAL to just
SYSTEM/LOCAL where by default we (roughly, to give an idea) map SYSTEM
subdirs --> /usr/ subdirs and LOCAL subdirs --> /usr/local/ subdirs ?
Otherwise, the mapping between SYSTEM/LOCAL used by gnustep-make and
SYS/PLATFORM/PLATFORM_LOCAL would become even more complicated and
confusing that what it is already going to be. ;-)
Also, I'd rename USER_GNUSTEP_DIR into GNUSTEP_USER_DIR for consistency
... everything should start with GNUSTEP_*
Btw, why USER_GNUSTEP_DEFAULTS and GNUSTEP_DEFAULTS_ROOT work in totally
different way ? Can we unify and have a single logic behind those
variables ?
It looks like gnustep-make has no integration with this at all :-(
Anyway, I'm willing to do work on integrating this with gnustep-make (also
checking what OpenGroupware.org is doing to make sure we cover their needs
and maybe finally they can leave their gnustep-make's fork), but if I do
I'm going to rename most variables and reorganize much of this -- probably
breaking backwards compatibility quite hard if anyone is using the file
already (that I very much doubt given gnustep-make doesn't support it at
all). I doubt we can easily merge with gnustep-make unless we rationalize
the logic behind and try to merge it with the existing logic used in
gnustep-make. :-)
Any special comments ? (please no flamewars though, be polite thanks)
> > I seem to remember there is lot of hidden complexity in here, but
> > don't
> > remember much about the details, so probably reading old email
> > archives and
> > checking what the code does etc. is required! ;-)
>
> I spent an evening with post-its and NSPathUtilities.m when 1.11.0
> make/base were released trying to reconstruct my $HOME-respectng
> patch, trying to flow-diagram the different paths through the code. I
> feel the only part that makes the code scary is compatibility support
> for GNUsteprc ... Also, I feel like there were many sections of dead
> code because of this; hopefully that will be removed when backwards
> compatible support for GNUsteprc is removed.
Yes, I'm for scrapping the old code. We've got enough messy complications
in the new one ;-)
> However, I think it was about last year this time when I submitted
> similar patches against an older -base, and they were rejected, iirc,
> because some were afraid of what would happen if someone used "su" ...
That might actually be a good argument. :-(
(I haven't looked at the patches though)
> Another reason for the patch is that I also need it for allowing
> builds to complete while in a sandbox (i.e. Gentoo ebuilds). The
> simple act of making or installing apps, and docs, would create
> ~/GNUstep in /root.
Thanks - this is certainly an interesting problem :-)
I would have imagined the new configuration system would give you enough
power to redirect the root's user directory / defaults to /tmp/xxx ... ;-)
... maybe not ?
Thanks
- Re: Totally Gormless, (continued)
- Re: Totally Gormless, Armando Di Cianno, 2005/10/11
- Re: Totally Gormless, Nicola Pero, 2005/10/11
- Re: Totally Gormless, Adam Fedor, 2005/10/11
- Re: Totally Gormless, Nicola Pero, 2005/10/11
- Re: Totally Gormless, Armando Di Cianno, 2005/10/11
- Re: Totally Gormless, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Armando Di Cianno, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Nicola Pero, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Armando Di Cianno, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Armando Di Cianno, 2005/10/11
- Re: Totally Gormless,
Nicola Pero <=
- Re: Totally Gormless, Adam Fedor, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Adam Fedor, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Nicola Pero, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Helge Hess, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Armando Di Cianno, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Helge Hess, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Adam Fedor, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Nicola Pero, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Armando Di Cianno, 2005/10/12
- Re: Totally Gormless, Adam Fedor, 2005/10/12