Hi
Well then, the packagers come close to being in my category (4) then ...
GNUstep should have a native setup for them so that the packages they produce
will just work for the end users.
Actually, I don't think that's ideal either ... we should assist packagers to
produce better packages ... and contribute filesystem layout configurations for
their systems to gnustep-make, and contribute installation scripts to the
packages.
It's not good for GNUstep if packagers produce packages which install and then
don't work.
to be honest, if a packager produces a package that doesn't work, the
distribution the works with has a Q&A problem...
That's not really what I meant ... I was thinking of
alternative/unofficial distributions of GNUstep. eg. if Riccardo
wanted to produce a whole GNUstep environment to be installed on top
of an Ubuntu system *instead* of the packages which come with Ubuntu
... he might want to do that because he hates the Debian insistence on
FHS and would like Ubuntu users to have a whole integrated system
using an apple layout.
Well, that is what I do on my debian computer: I installed gnustep so
that it pulled in all dependencies, then I removed the gnustep packages
and built everything by source.
By using this trick, an clean installation was extremely simple and
required no configure option at all (except that I used --prefix=/ but
that is really optional and as David writes, a debatable choice on
system with several filesystems mounted).
Everything worked the first time. The only single thing I really had to
do was shoucing GNUstep.sh and given that I really do wonder about
people complaining about gnusteps' problems. It is not that other
complex software packages are easier at all!
Maybe by adding this to the end of -make's install?
echo source ${GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES}/GNUstep.sh>> /etc/profile
echo source ${GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES}/GNUstep.csh>> /etc/csh.cshrc
Sure, we've discussed that kind of thing before and there was a strong argument
that editing such files is intrusive, and system dependent since the
appropriate files vary, and generally somewhat complex (you need to remove old
edits before making a new one) and error-prone. I'm sure we could do it, but
using native conventions seems simpler so far.
I'd prefer not. In the past I had experienced troubles iwth some
programs (for example Java applications) when the gnustep env. was set
up. I still source GNUstep.sh manually after 10 years...
Even a message at the end of installing -make telling users that they have to
add this line to their .profile would help people compiling from source.
Yes, I'm all for that, but I think there are plenty of people who just wouldn't
read/notice it :-(
well, I think makefiles should all spit out that error, since this is
the first problem somebody which is building from source experiences.
Some makefiles just complain about "config.make not present". Once
sourced a successful make is possible and the application will run fine.
I think on windows we already set the filesystem layout and set
everything up for the user in the package installer. IIRC the problem
there was they were not using the msys shell provided in the GNUstep
package so things were totally broken for them. I'm not sure what we
can do about that.
On windows if you use the "msys.bat" shell provided (which used to have
a nice GNUstep icon, btw) everything is sourced for you and works out of
the box, this is why I had trouble understanding what went wrong to the
user who reported here.
Riccardo
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
