[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: State of the 'Step

From: Nicola Pero
Subject: Re: State of the 'Step
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:53:21 +0000

what we need for all the other
GNUstep applications is that converter from the GNUstep make file to
package descriptors and this shouldn't be to hard.

From past experiences, I'm not sure a "converter" would help that much ;-)

IMO packaging a standard GNUstep application (say, Gorm) is easy to the point that any
attempt to automate it makes it more difficult! ;-)

For example, gnustep-make supports building RPMs out of the box using information you type in some special gnustep-make variables in your GNUmakefile. Nobody uses it presumably because you have to read and understand how it works. If you're an RPM packager it can be of an equivalent difficulty to just write the RPM spec file (after all, you have to type in the same information - package name, title, copyright, description, etc) but writing the RPM spec file directly is better as you have total control of the packaging. And there is massive, extensive documentation on writing RPM spec files, with millions of
examples and discussions. ;-)

Btw, GNUstep stuff used to be difficult to package because we didn't support some "standard" options that packagers expect. For example, a few years ago 'make DESTDIR=/tmp/install'
would not work ... but now it does :-)

Please check


for information on packaging GNUstep and GNUstep applications. Let me know if anything is missing or needs improvement. Once you package gnustep-make and gnustep-base (which are the relatively hard ones) everything
else should be really simple/standard to package.

So I'm not sure that there is much to do in terms of automation (but feel free to suggest). What we really need are packagers and package repositories - and exciting end-user products to package of course :-D


reply via email to

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