[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNUstep.sh / env sanity patches

From: Rogelio M . Serrano Jr .
Subject: Re: GNUstep.sh / env sanity patches
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:34:28 +0800

On 2004-08-20 02:51:19 +0800 Helge Hess <address@hidden> wrote:

On Aug 19, 2004, at 13:50, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
What I don't understand is why should you or any developer be forced to put a GNUstep based server in a standard un*x location? One writes a GNUstep-based server and one thus needs the entire GNUstep environment (in the case of a server atleast -make and -base). So it could just live within the GNUstep environment with e.g. just a init-script to start and stop the so clearly written server.

What am I missing?

a) Linux distributions have policies which _state_ that things are to
   be placed in un*x locations. You don't get included if you can't do
   it "their" way
b) for a server the target audience are Linux/BSD/xx administrators
which shoot you for the "weird" setup/layout. Those are not users and the idea behind the "user friendly" setup does not really apply here. They want to find their logs in /var/log and the configurations in /etc.
c) for a server sourcing GNUstep.sh in the init script works, for
   tools it doesn't. too much overhead, I also do not source GNOME
   setup scripts if I just want to run xmllint. If you would need to
   source something to run a Perl or Python script no one would ever
   use it.


I agree. There must be a GNUstep distro. Maybe revive Linuxstep?

reply via email to

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