Re: GNUstep.conf

[Nicola Pero]

> > > Hello @list,
> > > has anyone tried to bend the settings of GNUSTEP_XXX_ROOT such that
> > > the GNUstep folders reflect the folder structure of OS X?
> > > That is, for example instead of .../Local/Applications/ and
> > > .../System/Applications/ just have ONE .../Applications/ (one
> > > .../Library/ and so on).
> > > Would there be any (negative) implications if you'd do so?
> > I am for keeping the different domains (user, local, network) if you
> > ask me (did you?) since it allows a fine grained supply of
> > applications. As Einstein said: "make it as simple as possible but not
> > simpler"
> 
> For clarification: I do/did NOT ask to have /Local and /System
> officially removed.
> 
> I figured that since there is a system-wide GNUstep.conf that sets
> GNUSTEP_XXX_ROOT, it would be an idea to play around with a more
> OSX'ish setup -- on a personal setup.
> After all, I guess that's (sortof) what GNUstep.conf is for, right? :-)
> 
> The question would be, IF you do that, what the implications would be.
> As Alex P. already pointed out, some developers hard-code paths (baaad
> idea) but other than that, is there anything else? Basically, does
> GNUstep itself rely on a specific file/folder structure?

Currently, the configuration options are not enough to let you deviate
much from the standard GNUstep file/folder structure. :-(

... but the plan is there and is unfolding (a bit slowly I agree) -- as
per the gnustep-make roadmap I posted. :-)

The configuration options will increase in the next weeks/months and you
should be able to relocate almost everything around -- one of our
objectives is being able to support a fully FHS-compliant filesystem
setup.

Thanks


PS: I'm totally swamped with other work so I can't make fast progress on
gnustep-make and the configuration, but we're still in target for having
all this nicely supported in 3 to 6 months from now.  That's a realistic
estimate.