Nicola Pero schrieb: >>>I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed >>>it. >> >> >>Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not sourced? >>So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh? > > > Yes, it is meant to be executed, not sourced. Not sure what implication > that does have on the '.sh' at the end of the name though. > > Maybe omitting the '.sh' would allow us more freedom in the future, eg, > to replace the script with a compiled binary if we ever need ? > > Any suggestions/comments on what the best name is ?
IIRC we had some extensive discussions on the mailing lists that .sh/.csh should only be used for scripts that are sourced. But since GNUStep.sh is referenced so often in the archives, I'm having a hard time finding the discussion. >>I thought the main point was to enable ./configure to test for the >>existence/usability of GNUstep libraries/frameworks. So shouldn't it be >>installed in into a standard system path instead of >>GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT/Tools? I would expect /usr/local/bin or whatever >>--bindir is set to for configure of -make. > > > If GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT/Tools is not in your PATH, then GNUstep is either > not installed, or completely unusable - and your configure should fail in that > case. ;-) OK, I guess I missing the point of the pkg-config/gnustep-config discussion. I admit that I'm confused about role/intent of all of these configuration files and relocaction capabilities. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
