Re: Proposal question.

[Christian Edward Gruber]

Hmm.  I agree with the need for GNUstep specific docs, but frankly, this is
Cocoa... at least in that Cocoa is the heir of OpenStep.  I think that for
places where GNUstep attempts to keep compatibility, it's quite reasonable
to say... at least until we have more docs.

This layout worked well for me on OpenBSD, btw.  I simply used
/usr/local/GNUstep as $(GNUSTEP_ROOT), and it all worked nicely from there.
On my own boxes, I will likely use / as the $(GNUSTEP_ROOT), but the above
worked nicely for a port.  In fact, the existing Makefiles source worked
into a port with almost no modification (other than the shared-libs stuff
for OpenBSD)

cg.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Harrison" <tim@linuxstep.org>
To: <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal question.


> H.-R. Oberhage wrote:
>
> > In article <3CD95297.2040807@linuxstep.org> you wrote:
> > : 1.  no one is interested in utilising this proposal
> > : 2.  it's so long, people are still trying to get to the end of it.
> >
> > No, no, no - and yes, yes, yes: I am interested in it and I did post an
> > article about that to the gnu.gnustep.discuss newsgroup. I saw at least
> > two other postings concerning it, there. The first time you posted
> > the suggestion (some months ago), the thread was even bigger.
>
> True, there were a few replies to the original posting, and I made many
> modifications from those responses.  However, since reposting a modified
> version, I've heard next to nothing, and there hasn't been any
> "official" response from anyone on the GNUstep Project.  I certainly
> appreciated the modification of "Apps" to "Applications", don't get me
> wrong.  However, there is much more to the proposal than just the names
> of the directories.  It's about having a clearly defined, documented,
> and "standard" structure.  I've tried my best to not be influenced by my
> need for LinuxSTEP integration, and paid close attention to how the
> proposal would work on other systems as well.
>
> One of my biggest beefs with GNUstep (not the team, but the environment)
> is the lack of clear, concise, and GNUstep-specific documentation.  It's
> all well and good to say "Look at Apple's docs", but this is not Cocoa.
>   This is GNUstep.
>
> Pardon my ranting. :)  I'm under some pressure to get LinuxSTEP 0.2.5
> released, and I want to tie up some loose ends before it is available.
> One of those loose ends is GNUstep integration (as the LinuxSTEP Package
> Manager is written using gnustep-base).
>
> > Did you 'receive' the postings?
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot recall (or have in my saved mail) receiving your
> responses. :/  Would you be so kind as to repost them (either to the
> mailing list, or privately to me)?  I would highly appreciate that.
>
>
> --
>
> Tim Harrison
> tim@linuxstep.org
> http://www.linuxstep.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>
>