Re: GNUstep.sh / env sanity patches

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 18 Aug 2004, at 08:54, John Davidorff Pell wrote:

> On 17 Aug 2004, at 23:22, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
>
> > I'm very strongly against having a fixed location which cannot be 
> > overridden hardcoded into GNUstep.  I want to be able to produce a 
> > binary software distribution that I can give to a customer on a 
> > cd-rom and tell them to install it and run it wherever they like on 
> > their machine.
>
> You're talking about a relocatable install.
Yes.

> True, but you need a relocatable install. In this case it would make 
> sense for all the GNUstep stuff to use relative paths from where they 
> are being run from, so when you run .../Tools/mytool it will know that 
> ../Library/Frameworks is where the libraries are. This way, no 
> extra-GNUstep system conf file is needed. It also relieves the user 
> from having to install the conf file and edit it based on where they 
> unrolled the binary dist (unless its done automatically which might 
> clobber a user-installed GNUstep which depends on the file).

This would be fine if apps were all to be run from a fixed location in 
the hierarchy, but that's not the case, consider any app in the user 
domain for instance.  People object to you telling them they can't put 
individual apps where they like.