Re: FHS compliance/Abstraction of NSBundle

[Helge Hess]

On 9. Mai 2006, at 06:17 Uhr, Andrew Ruder wrote:
> I don't believe that this should be an option; this should be  
> *STANDARD*
> operation.

Maybe I'm wrong but people seem to consider FHS vs GNUstep hierarchy  
and either/or thing. It certainly isn't. FHS (or other system  
hierarchies) is just an *additional* fallback path hierarchy which  
should be searched after the GNUstep hierarchy (if its setup).
Some additional information is required (like versioning information  
for resource/bundle lookup), but there should be some way to add this  
to NSBundle.

Thats how it works in OGo, if you did source GNUstep.sh, you have all  
the flexibility and features of the GNUstep hierarchy, if you don't  
it still works.
(though real world shows that _no one_ cares about the latter ...)
Its a bit like library combos vs flattened or _d, _dp library  
suffixes. I love the former, but of course its really overkill in 98%  
of the use cases. So is the GNUstep hierarchy. It doesn't provide any  
real-world gain.

Now how the packager decides how to package stuff is his own choice.  
Obviously most will choose to use FHS (well, even refuse GNUstep if  
it doesn't support FHS), but some (eg GNUstep centric) distris may not.

Greets,
  Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org