[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure? No!
From: |
Pascal J. Bourguignon |
Subject: |
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure? No! |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:55:21 +0100 (CET) |
Nicola Pero <nicola@brainstorm.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm only very slightly in favour of the flattened structure.
I don't see any advantage to the flattened structure, given that it
will be hidden to the end users anyway (by GWorkspace.app), and...
> The main argument in favour of the deep directory structure seems to be
> that it can be used to build multi-platforms executables.
(For example, rpm has provision for building from source rpms to
different architectures, that is, it is compatible with a cvs
distribution with deep directory structure.)
> But - since we are going to distribute packages using rpms and debs, my
> question is - does this deep directory structure means we can build a
> single rpm for different linux distributions ? As far as I understand,
> the answer is `no', because different linux distributions will have their
> binaries all in the same dir ix86/gnu-linux/gnu-gnu-gnu-xgps (except ppc
> which will have a different one) while I assume the binaries should be
> different - possibly for differences in system libraries and so forth ?
Not a point against deep directory structure, but on the contrary,
showing that it should be deepened, or at least, we should add sub os
tags such as gnu-linux-redhat-6.1, gnu-linux-redhat-7.0,
gnu-linux-mandrake-7.0, gnu-linux-debian-potatoe...
> hhm - I don't know enough to answer - is it because the binaries are
> different that people have different rpms for different distributions I
> suppose ? If it is not for this reason, then if we use our own same
> layout inside /usr/GNUstep on all machines, we could perhaps make
> different rpms for the core libraries, but then a single rpm <for
> applications which interface to the system only using the core libraries>
> for every linux distribution (with the same characteristics, such as same
> major version of libc) would be enough ?
We cannot say much for (third party) applications because they may
depend on a range of other libraries beside libc. More over, GNUstep
applications will be distributed as GNUstep Installer packages. We're
only discussing the distribution of the GNUstep system itself.
It seems that while rpm support multi architecture source rpms, there
can be only one architecture in a binary rpm (at least in version 3,
I've not checked later versions).
Therefore, the following practice:
% cd /nfs/common
% wget ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/dist/bins/rpms/i586/gnustep-1.0-rh61.i586.rpm
% rpm -i --prefix=/nfs/common/gnustep gnustep-1.0-rh61.i586.rpm
% wget ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/dist/bins/rpms/sparc/gnustep-1.0-rh61.sparc.rpm
% rpm -i --prefix=/nfs/common/gnustep --ignorearch gnustep-1.0-rh61.sparc.rpm
would break if the rpm installed a flattened directory structure (-),
while it would be ok if it installed a deep directory structure (+).
While the following practice:
% cd /gnustep
% wget ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/dist/bins/rpms/i586/gnustep-1.0-rh61.i586.rpm
% rpm -i --prefix=/gnustep gnustep-1.0-rh61.i586.rpm
would be ok both with flattened directory structure (+) and with deep
directory structure (+).
In addition, GWorkspace will anyway show the same view whether the
flattened directory structure (+) or the deep directory structure (+)
is used.
Total: 2 for flattened directory structure
3 for deep directory structure.
And if we added sub-os/version types to the 'gnu-linux' node, we could
even support a range of different distributions, if that is really
needed (if they're really that different).
> In any case, it seems to me that the deep directory structure does not
> work for (or against) generating rpms which can run on multiple linux
> intel distributions.
>
> Certainly, debs have to be distributed separately simply because they are
> debs and not rpms.
>
> A binary package for windows can not anyway be distributed as an rpm, so
> windows binary distributions have to be shipped again as separate
> packages.
>
> The other reason to have deep directory structure is to have multiple
> backends on the same machine. I think this is quite useful but it is an
> advanced feature - core developers will want to do that, but they will
> have everything installed from cvs anyway, and adding an option to
> configure should not be a problem for them.
Not only core developers, but also any administrator at a user site,
and this includes also single users (well, application programmers)
that may have several heterogenous systems. May be I'm special, but I
can have and use up to seven computers, of which at least three, of
different architectures, ran NeXTSTEP, and will run GNUstep.
> In general, I don't see deep structure as a big advantage, while it's a
> bit clumsy to work with for the beginner, so, if we are trying to make our
> system very simple to install and start with to make it available to a
> wider audience, I'm slightly in favour of not making it the default.
Having it is not a big advantage.
Not having it is a big disadvantage.
For the beginner, it won't make a difference anyway since it's hidden
by GWorkspace.app.
The same for Display Postscript and -NXHost... Oh no! It's not a big
advantage -NXHost... So small an advantage that suits at Apple stashed
it away.
Therefore I would say (and this concerns only GNUstep system
distributions):
- generate binary rpms, debian packages, whatever* to install with
the deep directory structure.
- distribute a script to flatten any GNUstep deep directory
structure, for those (advanced) users who don't like what they
see in the xterm window.
(*) Even if the range has reduced, I understand that MS-Windows-NT
also runs on a range of different architectures. Who are we to say
that no MS-Windows-NT administrator may install a shared deep
directory structure for his GNUstep system and applications to be
used on both MS-Windows-NT-i586 and MS-Windows-NT-alpha, or whatever.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ PGP Key ID: 0xEF5E9966 (o_
mailto:pjb@imaginet.fr PGP fingerprint: 00 F5 7B DB CA 51 8A AD 04 5B //\
http://informatimago.free.fr/index 6C DE 32 60 16 8E EF 5E 99 66 V_/
() Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against html email and Microsoft attachments.
/\ Software patents are endangering the computer industry all around the world.
Join the LPF: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/ http://petition.eurolinux.org/
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, (continued)
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, David Relson, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Christian Edward Gruber, 2001/01/11
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2001/01/11
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Philippe C . D . Robert, 2001/01/11
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Jeff Teunissen, 2001/01/15
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Frederic, 2001/01/09
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Dennis Leeuw, 2001/01/10
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Nicola Pero, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure? No!,
Pascal J. Bourguignon <=
FW: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Yann Le Guen, 2001/01/09
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Jason H Clouse, 2001/01/10
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Gregory Casamento, 2001/01/10