RE: FHS compliance for libraries (was Re: gnustep-make experiment)

[Nicola Pero]

I'm a bit confused by your email. ;-)

I guess it simply shows that most people are not aware of the 'radical' 
filesystem-independency plan that we have been working on in gnustep-make and 
gnustep-base for the past few years! ;-)


> Wouldn't it be possible to change make so that it handles both setups (i.e. 
> FHS or GNUstep)?    

This is exactly what the current implementation is designed to achieve! :-)

Nobody will have to make any changes to their GNUmakefiles, unless they have 
custom makefile/shell 
code that explicitly depends on the GNUstep-filesystem hierarchy (in that case, 
of course, they will have to modify it to make it more general (but the old one 
would keep working if you never use Linux FHS)).


> This way we could have one set of GNUmakefiles to handle everything, instead 
> of two 
> (as Nicola suggested).

Nobody ever suggested that you need to have different GNUmakefiles for the 
different
filesystem hierarchies!

Your GNUmakefiles will work in whatever way you have configured GNUstep; 
gnustep-make (and gnustep-base) will manage the local filesystem configuration  
in a transparent way.

That has already been built in into gnustep-make and gnustep-base, by the way, 
only 
the final steps are missing. ;-)

I guess the only really open discussion points are the ones raised by Matt, 
summarized in one
of my last email -- how to avoid having to set GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES to compile, 
and how to easily
let ./configure and shell scripts have access to various bits of gnustep 
configuration (eg, how
do you check for the existence of a gnustep library in ./configure).

Thanks