[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN
From: |
Nicola Pero |
Subject: |
Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN |
Date: |
Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:41:51 +0200 (CEST) |
>>> Would it be an idea to have an option that decides what kind of tree is
>>> going to be used like:
>>>
>>> GNUSTEP_FS_STRUCTURE=[FHS|GNUSTEP|WINDOWS|SOLARIS]
>>>
>>
>> We're not far from that ;-) ... that option will be used when configuring
>> gnustep-make.
>
> It is -base which decides what goes where so we shouldn't we really be
> configuring base, not -make?
>
> Decoupling the dependencies is a good thing, IMHO.
You would be able to change your filesystem structure at any time by
editing your GNUstep.conf.
GNUstep.conf is initially created by gnustep-make, so it makes sense to
have the option
there.
Things should be decoupled ... -make and -base don't really talk or depend
on each other.
Everything is driven by GNUstep.conf. You'll be able to use -base (/any
other GNUstep software)
without -make if you want, if you set manually everything in GNUstep.conf.
>> We just need to save the configured filesystem structure in GNUstep.conf,
>> and use it to set GNUSTEP_APPS etc. in common.make, and we're almost done
>> (except
>> that a few things, like GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DIR, will no longer work
in that
>> context). ;-)
>>
> Then every application, at launch time, must set up the whole fs structure?
>
Yes ... we're not really "almost done". :-( ... we also need to have
gnustep-base load
the directory structure from GNUstep.conf and use it when searching for stuff
at runtime :-/
> For consideration, isn't GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN a little too
confusing?
>
> I'd prefer something a little more like:
>
> GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DIR (we'd have to change some -make internals)
The problem with this is that it would break backwards compatibility ;-)
There are makefiles out there that might be using it in the old meaning.
We can't break those, at least not when they are used in the old context. ;-)
> GNUSTEP_INSTALL_INTO
> GNUSTEP_INSTALL_DESTINATION
>
> or perhaps we should be thinking more along packaging lines...
>
> GNUSTEP_PACKAGE_LOCATION
>
> Packagers can easily add a line to their makefile or preamble this way...
I don't really have an opinion, I like GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN but
we can change the option name, it's not a problem. :-)
Comments/suggestions on the name are welcome. :-)
Thanks
Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2006/10/10
Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Dennis Leeuw, 2006/10/10
- Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Nicola Pero, 2006/10/10
- Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Sheldon Gill, 2006/10/12
- Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN,
Nicola Pero <=
- Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Sheldon Gill, 2006/10/12
- Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Nicola Pero, 2006/10/12
- Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2006/10/13
- Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Hubert Chan, 2006/10/13
RE: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN, Adam Fedor, 2006/10/11