discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: make sysinstall/Makefile.preamble/GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN


From: Gregory John Casamento
Subject: Re: make sysinstall/Makefile.preamble/GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:59:10 -0800 (PST)


"Something like (we will find a shorter name, obviously)

./configure --install-core-into-system-by-default"
 
That sounds cool, I was about to say "GAH!!!  Find a shorter name!!" ;)

Later, GC
Gregory Casamento -- Principal Consultant - OLC, Inc
# GNUstep Chief Maintainer



From: Nicola Pero <address@hidden>
To: David Ayers <address@hidden>
Cc: Discuss-gnustep GNUstep <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:58:14 AM
Subject: Re: make sysinstall/Makefile.preamble/GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN


On 15 Dec 2008, at 08:46, David Ayers wrote:

> Am Freitag, den 12.12.2008, 16:42 -0600 schrieb Stefan Bidigaray:
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM, David Chisnall <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>>
>>        On 12 Dec 2008, at 20:58, Fred Kiefer wrote:
>>
>>                And we really should add that "make sysinstall" hack
>>                to GNUstep make
>>                before the next release to make live easier for the
>>                people out that that
>>                want to stick with the old structure.
>>
>>
>>        Please do!  Being able to blow away Local without destroying
>>        the GNUstep install is really useful for testing.  Before
>>        GNUstep started installing itself in the wrong place, I used
>>        to do this every couple of weeks to make sure clean builds of
>>        √Čtoil√© worked on my machine.
>>
>> Well, this really doesn't affect me since I've been using
>> GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN for a while now, anyway.  I'm still not
>> convinced adding a new target is the right thing to do, and even if
>> it's implemented by the next release I'll probably still use the
>> current mechanism.  But that's not here or there.
>
> The ability to delete "Local" without deleting the "core" packages
> (whatever that may mean to any particular developer) sounds like a
> reasonable request.  But in my view a -make target like "sysinstall"
> doesn't seem like the right approach.

I agree.

I think we should go back to my original proposal - that of having a new option to gnustep-make's
configure.

Something like (we will find a shorter name, obviously)

./configure --install-core-into-system-by-default

gnustep-make would then automatically install all the core packages into System by default
instead of Local, where they would otherwise go (I can implement all of this easily if there's
agreement on it).

So, "core" developers (ie, us) would only need to configure our gnustep-make in that
way and get the old behaviour. :-)

Thanks

_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep


reply via email to

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