Re: make sysinstall/Makefile.preamble/GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN

[Nicola Pero]

> > > Let me know if there is any agreement on other pieces of software  
> > > to include.   Maybe we should
> > > include everything that is in the GNUstep subversion repository ?   
> > > I was hoping for a smaller
> > > list, but at least that would provide an objective way to decide.
> >
> > I'm not in favor of this really for any packages ... I'd like not  
> > to have support for this cluttering anything.
> > Admittedly the clutter is really trivial, but I see no benefit to it.
>
>
> Sorry ... too short.
>
> What I suggest is:
> 1. Unwind any changes to any packages to do with this ... intrusive  
> changes to packages merely to support a installation location makes  
> little sense.
> 2. Produce a different mechanism if you really want a mechanism for  
> this at all.
>
> For instance, you could have a file listing the projects you want to  
> install in the system domain, and gnustep-make could consult that  
> file to decide where to install each project ...
> eg. if it's got to install a project X, it ooks up X in it's config  
> file, and if it should you in domain Y then it sets  
> GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN to Y before proceeding.
> This would avoid the issue of having to decide which projects are  
> 'core' (which is not something the developer/maintainer of the  
> project should be doing).

Yes ... I'm kind of unconvinced myself  - even if the changes do  
implement exactly what was requested (ie, a "backwards-compatibility"  
mode
where 'core' packages get installed into System in the same way as  
before).  I'm kind of accepting that I don't really understand why  
people
really need such a "backwards-compatibility" mode but we're providing  
it as a temporary measure while our hardcore developers digest
the change and hopefully find more logical ways of building/organizing  
their local installations. ;-)

I like the idea of having a list of 'core' packages that each  
developer can set up and maintain ... but then well they
could as well just set up and maintain a build script then, and we  
wouldn't even be having this discussion ;-)

A script is much more handy in that it also builds things for you.  I  
can't believe people are really rebuilding everything often and
typing './configure; make; make install' manually for all the projects  
each time - including waiting for each command to complete
before typing the next one (I hate that). ;-)

I mean it's trivial to write such a script ...

 cd core/base
 ./configure
 make
 make install GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN=SYSTEM
 cd ..

 cd core/gui
 ./configure
 make
 make install GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN=SYSTEM
 cd ..

 ... etc ...

I suppose the 'make install' having to be done as root might create a  
mild complication, but not something
that would really deter a serious scripter.

Shall we concentrate our work on providing template build scripts  
then ?  I saw that Gregory made improvements
to the core/compile-all script - maybe that's the way to go.

Thanks