On 9 May 2006, at 07:45, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:
Andrew Ruder <andy <at> aeruder.net> writes:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:21:04PM -0700, Gregory John Casamento
wrote:
FHS Compliance
==============
We could have Foundation and AppKit in the /usr/local/include
directory, the libraries in /usr/local/lib and the resources for
the
libraries in /usr/local/share. This could be offered as an option
for the user at configuration time. This would allow the
deployment
of GNUstep in an FHS compatible fashion.
I don't believe that this should be an option; this should be
*STANDARD*
operation. As I discussed with Greg earlier, I think one problem
with
GNUstep is that there is an incredibly large barrier to entry:
[snip]
I think it is unfair to say that just because GNUstep does not
conform to FHS
and has some other features.
FHS is not the only choice in open source world.
Even Xwindow is installed in difference place in Linux, FreeBSD and
MacOS X.
I got GNUstep ready to use through DarwinPorts.
The only thing I need to learn is to start GNUstep.sh and use
'openapp'.
On the other hand, I don't even know how to start Gnome if I start
xwindow from terminal (This happens when I crash Gnome and am forced
to quit xwindow).
What we need is a desktop environment like Gnome and KDE.
There are several attempts including Etoile.
I remember the time I use gnome 0.x or 1.x.
It is just like GNUstep now.
What we need is a good installaion system, which can go through the
package system
in distros, and some good applications and integration.
Look at Xfce, which is also a nice dekstop environment.
I believe it conforms to FHS (never use it, though).
It is still not as popular as Gnome and KDE.
But I do think the OpenGroupware.org has a good arguement
that Foundation should have an option to be installed in FHS as
libFoundation.
AppKit need some other resources and is not worth to do that in my
own opinions
I agree with this observation ... in my opinion it can be summarised
as ...
1. Lack of FHS conformance is not reall a big deal
2. An option for FHS conformance would be nice to have
I think this has been clear and well accepted for a long time, and
FHS conformance has been on the 'roadmap' for gnustep make for a long
time.
Given that we ALREADY HAVE AGREEMENT on the desirability of FHS
support, I don't think we need more people saying that we should have
an option to support FHS, especially if they overstate the case and
start arguments.
So ...
a. to anyone arguing for FHS support as an option ... please stop.
b. to anyone arguing for FHS support unconditionally replacing the
current layout ... be realistic, it's not going to happen right away
(if ever).
c. to anyone working on producing patches for the make package to
optionally add FHS support... if you submit them I will make it a
priority to look at incorporating them.
NB. anyone working on FHS support should grab the task from the
GNUstep project at https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?group=gnustep
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
