Re: GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DOMAIN

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 13 Oct 2006, at 02:33, Nicola Pero wrote:

> > NB. the system domain for installation purposes would not be the same
> > as the system domain for all other purposes in this case.
>
> This is a new, confusing distinction that you are introducing and  
> that would
> make everything lot more complicated. ;-)
>
> You're proposing to introduce 'installation domains' as separated from
> 'runtime domains',
> ie, you could have /usr/lib as the runtime System/Libraries dir, while
> /usr/local/lib
> is the installation System/Libraries dir.  That would be a hell lot  
> of a
> complication (and
> there is more complexity for packagers). ;-)

When writing the last email I started writing about how the term  
domain might be confusing ... but then gave up and deleted that  
paragraph.  I'm really don't want complexity.  What I want is to make  
things simple to use, so people don't need to add extra arguments to  
their make command to say where things should go.

> Hopefully we can negotiate some other solution, as I don't want to add
> such complexity. :-/

I agree.

> I had written more on this, but I don't want to discuss it.  Too  
> complex. ;-)
>
>
> > > I agree ... but who decides what are the system packages ?  Not
> > > us. :-)
> > >
> > > It's decided by the packagers. ;-)
> >
> > But we *are* the packagers for the *default* system ... the GNUstep
> > system.
>
> We only distribute the source code, not binaries.  If we distribute  
> binaries,
> then yes, we should install the GNUstep ones into System.  When we  
> distribute
> source code, it should install by default into Local.

> I agree we should have binaries distributions of the "default"  
> system, and
> those
> should install all GNUstep packages into System.  In fact, anything  
> that
> they package
> should be put into System.  That would be great. :-)
>
>
> > Only where you are using a system with GNUstep stuff pre-installed.
> > Many (most?) people are not using such a system ... they have
> > installed the 'GNUstep system' on their machine.
> > It's located in /usr/GNUstep.
> > The standard packages are in /usr/GNUstep/System
> > Other stuff is in /usr/GNUstep/Local
>
> Core developers (/most people at the moment) that compile and  
> install from
> scratch
> are not using a distribution. ;-)
>
> (guess I need to clarify that by 'distribution' I mean 'binary
> distribution').

OK .. I don't hugely object to the principle of installing in  
Local ... but I mostly haven't seen it clearly argued for/justified.

The argument based on installing like general unix packages, in /usr/ 
local, donesn't make sense to me since /usr/local is not necessarily  
the same thing as Local.  We can easily install in the same place as  
standard unix packages without installing in Local.
The subtly different argument that anything not built as part of a  
distribution should install in the Local domain rather than the  
system domain (because only the distributor should touch the System  
domain) makes much more sense, but is complicated by other factors ...
1. the definition of a distribution ... since the GNUstep project is,  
in a sense, a distribution
2. inconsistency, since existing practice is to install the core  
libraries and some other tools in System, and in the file layout  
document you pointed out that 'official' policy is to store the core  
libraries in System.
3. historical. we are talking about changing behavior and where  
things go by default

Now, I think we can ignore 1 (now we are clear about it) since that's  
really just semantics, the only practical reason for considering the  
GNUstep project like a binary distribution is because some people  
(well, me at least) happen to have thought of it that way and because  
it largely fits in with (3) the historical practice of where things  
are installed.

I find 2 a real annoyance ... the idea of putting GNUstep stuff in  
system was consistent with my understanding  of 1, but this  
(currently documented) notion of putting the core libraries in System  
and everything else in Local makes no sense.  Surely it should be one  
or the other?   I'm happy to put everything in Local (if we define  
that the GNUstep project is not a distribution) or everything in  
System (if we define a distribution as a binary distribution), but I  
very much dislike a mixture.

3.  We can probably live with a change i behavior.



However ... here we come to a point where maybe I would quite like to  
see the installation code made more complex.
The make package has just been cleaned up a lot to avoid confusion  
and conflicts between normal,debug, and profile libraries, but now we  
are likely to get multiple copies of packages installed in different  
domains.  This should not cause horrible crashes and failures to run,  
but is still likely to cause confusion.
How hard would it be for gnustep-make to spot that we are installing  
a duplicate, tell us which domain the existing version is in, and ask  
us about it?