[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: make sysinstall/Makefile.preamble/GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN

From: Nicola Pero
Subject: Re: make sysinstall/Makefile.preamble/GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:58:02 +0000

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

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

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

I added such a flag; I thought a long time looking for a very short name and finally renamed it to --disable-packages. :-)

The reason is that System is normally reserved for 'packages', ie, software that comes with/is managed by your OS distribution, as in the typical GNU/Linux RPM or DEB package setup. This is why we don't want to normally write anything into System by default - to avoid conflicting with GNUstep packages (as you all know, we're making an effort to support more and more GNUstep packages and people installing GNUstep core from packages, as opposed to compiling from source. These people will have the GNUstep software from their distribution in System, and will be installing stuff they compile themselves into Local).

But if you're building *everything* from scratch, then obviously you're not using any packages and your System domain would normally be completely empty. Which is fine by the way. That's what I am going to do :-)

But I understand many hardcore developers in that case prefer to install 'core' software into System. Which
is what this new option does :-)

So in that case, you can use

 ./configure --disable-packages

when configuring gnustep-make, and gnustep-make will install 'core' software into System (a piece of software is 'core' if it contains the line GNUSTEP_CORE_SOFTWARE = YES in all its GNUmakefiles.
This line needs to go before including common.make).

Now what exactly is the list of these 'core' packages ?  For now I have


I'm not entirely sure what criteria or logic we are following to decide what software goes into System as opposed to Local in this situation. It looks like it's going to be a completely arbitrary list of pieces of software. Presumably, if the logic is that experimental software that a developer is playing with goes into Local (so can easily be removed) and "stable" software (which you rarely mess with) goes into System, then we should only mark as 'core' software software that is relatively mature and
doesn't change much and that few people are working on.

Let me know if there is any agreement on other pieces of software to include. Maybe we should include everything that is in the GNUstep subversion repository ? I was hoping for a smaller
list, but at least that would provide an objective way to decide.


reply via email to

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