Re: make sysinstall/Makefile.preamble/GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN

[David Ayers]

Am Donnerstag, den 18.12.2008, 19:58 +0000 schrieb Nicola Pero:

> Now what exactly is the list of these 'core' packages ?  For now I have
> 
>   core/base
>   core/gui
>   core/back
>   dev-apps/gorm
>   dev-apps/projectcenter
>   dev-libs/libobjc
>   usr-apps/gworkspace
> 
> 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.  

I'd really like to see other peoples view on this, since I agree that
this an arbitrary list... but I don't intend to use the configure flag
and I'm not maintaining it so any list is fine by me.

> 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.

IIUC, if you have a "stable" GORM in System and want to experiment with
SVN version in local, this configure flag won't actually help, since
this flag is a flag for -make and not for individual projects (which it
can't be since many projects such as GORM do not use/need autoconf
support.

> 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.

FWIW, I don't believe that -gdl2 or -gsweb should be core, mostly
because I don't know what "core" is supposed to mean.  Yet if there is
consensus that it should be "core" I don't mind setting it.

Cheers,
David