Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?

[Nicola Pero]

> >  I also think that rpm packages are for users, especially for
> > novice and should be flattened and if anyone who wants to
> > develop multi platform application then he should install
> > un flattened, deep dicrectory structured GNUstep from
> > source package and I think he can install these packages
> > easily :-)
> 

>     Question:  what exactly is the problem with the deep directory
> structure for users?  I don't understand.

>     Users just want to run tools and apps, right?  

Yes - that's true for end-users.

End-users will not know (nor possibly care) if it's flat or deep.

But for all these gnu-linux people, half-users half-sysadmin
half-developers, which are the ``novice users'' who will most likely
download gnustep rpm packages from the net and install them, they will
probably be interested in the directory structure.

Will deep directory structure scare them ? 
Will it impress them ? 
Is it easy or difficult to start with ?

I don't know.  It's certainly more difficult and confusing to have all
these deep directories everywhere, though it could be useful - even if I
don't remember having ever taken advantage of it, that's probably why I
don't mind if we make the flattened one the default.

One question though - say we use deep structure so we can have rpms for
the same application with multiple backends at the same time.  Does it
mean the rpm has to be prepared compiling the app multiple times for all
the multiple backends ?  If yes - then the rpm will depend on both the
backends, won't it ?  If I remember well, rpm will run `ldd' on all
executable files and mercilessly find all out libraries which were used to
prepare the package, and add the corresponding packages to the
dependencies, which means it will automatically depend on both the
backends.

Alternatively, you could distribute different rpms - but then, while the
binary is inside the deep structure, the plain wrapper is outside of it,
and wouldn't it be a conflict between the two different rpms if they both
need to install the same file ?

Unless I missed something, does this mean deep structure will not allow
anyway to have people installing from rpms to have multiple backends.

If that is the case, I see no point in deep structure and I strongly vote
for flat structure.