Re: Installing back (Local <-> System)

[Nicola Pero]

> Is there a difference?
>
> I believe it's there to provide a way of organizing applications into
ones which are provided
> with GNUstep or "System" level apps and apps which are added by the user.

It's there to provide a way of distinguishing binary packages that you have
installed as part of your distribution from packages that you have built
yourself
from source.

For example, if you get gnustep-make, gnustep-base from RPMs, they would
go into System.
If you then compile gnustep-gui, that should go into Local.

When you look at the stuff a month later, it's obvious what was installed
by an RPM
(it's in System) and what you have compiled yourself (it's in Local).

Of course, you need to replace RPM with whatever packaging system you use,
if any.

The same 'feature' that you get when using a Unix system ... you have /usr
and /usr/local
which provide a nice distinction between stuff that came/is managed by
your distribution
(in /usr) and stuff that you compiled/manage yourself (in /usr/local).

Eg, you have bash/make/something else in /usr, but you have your own
hacked compiler
installed in /usr/local.  The compiler might be part of the standard core
GNU toolset,
and would normally be configured by packagers to go in /usr.  But if you
install from s
ources, it goes by default into /usr/local because it's a local installation.

If you are compiling everything from source, then there is no difference
between System
and Local, and I believe everything should go into Local.  The same as in
a Unix system ...
if you compile from sources, everything goes into /usr/local by default.

At the moment, core and Gorm go into System even if you compile them from
sources ... mostly
for historical reasons.  So people should remember this exception.

Thanks