[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnustep-cvs] r31321 - in /tools/make/trunk: ChangeLog GNUstep.conf.

From: Gregory Casamento
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] r31321 - in /tools/make/trunk: ChangeLog configure
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:31:42 -0400

FHS is more than just a buzzword.   While I don't agree with some of
it's more extremist adherents I do see some advantages to it.

One is that by putting the GNUstep libraries into the places called
for by the FHS it makes it easier for people to use GNUstep libraries
outside of gnustep-make.   This was brought up in a previous email,
but I'll re-iterate here...

The fact that we need to source is a symptom of the fact
that GNUstep isn't following the FHS.  No matter if it's done manually
or inserted into the profile script or some other mechanism... it
shouldn't need to be done AT ALL.   While we're all used to this as
experienced users, people just starting out in GNUstep are having a
difficult time of it on both Windows and on Linux because GNUstep
violates many things that most Linux users consider to be "given."

One thing I'll never bend on is the idea that app wrappers should be
broken up into the /usr/share or /usr/local/share (as appropriate)
directories.   The idea that GNUstep libraries and headers should live
in the standard places isn't, however, ridiculous.   Experienced users
can keep their setup by setting the layout explicitly to gnustep.

A comment that was made a while back which I feel is important to
reiterate is this (I'm paraphrasing here):

"Because one new user has trouble with installation, now I have to set
the layout explicitly even though I've been using GNUstep for years?"

The answer to the question is "yes."   The reason is... it is
important for us to get new users on board and using GNUstep and, to
do this, we need to be easy to understand and easy for new
users/developers to use and understand.

All of that being said, the FHS is not a panacea.   Other systems,
such as BSD, don't follow the FHS (nor should they).   I'm wondering
now if the build system should try to detect if it's on BSD, Linux,
etc and use the appropriate layout for that system.


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Riccardo Mottola <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>>>  * make 'fhs' the default filesystem layout (so, by default everything is
>>> installed in /usr/local/
>>>    using a Unix layout) (with the exception of apple-apple-apple because
>>> there people are using
>>>    gnustep-make to compile Apple stuff, they're not really installing
>>> GNUstep)
>> Fine.
> I still dislike this default. Am I really the only one?
>>>  * add help for how to use each filesystem layout (printed at the end of
>>> configure)
>> Fine.
> Very fine. Also make sure, for the layouts that need "" to be
> sourced, that if possible a decent message is printed out. We might need to
> update gnustep-make and the makefiles generated by, for example,
> ProjectCenter and check the makefiles of stuff generated manually. A
> standard message will help the user who choose that kind of installation.
>>>  * (potentially, this is a new idea) rename 'fhs' to 'unix' ?
>> Not sure if this is a good idea.
> I don't think either. It is the FHS buzzword that people expect when they
> are choosy and want FHS. Unix appears to be to generic.
> Just my 0.2 €
> Riccardo
> _______________________________________________
> Gnustep-dev mailing list
> address@hidden

Gregory Casamento - GNUstep Lead/Principal Consultant, OLC, Inc.
yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa
(240)274-9630 (Cell)

reply via email to

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