[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnustep-make experiment

From: David Ayers
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:40:35 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20070113)

Nicola Pero schrieb:
>>>I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed 
>>Minor nit... isn't meant to be executed, not sourced?
>>So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of
> Yes, it is meant to be executed, not sourced.  Not sure what implication
> that does have on the '.sh' at the end of the name though.
> Maybe omitting the '.sh' would allow us more freedom in the future, eg,
> to replace the script with a compiled binary if we ever need ?
> Any suggestions/comments on what the best name is ?

IIRC we had some extensive discussions on the mailing lists that
.sh/.csh should only be used for scripts that are sourced.  But since is referenced so often in the archives, I'm having a hard
time finding the discussion.

>>I thought the main point was to enable ./configure to test for the
>>existence/usability of GNUstep libraries/frameworks.  So shouldn't it be
>>installed in into a standard system path instead of
>>GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT/Tools?  I would expect /usr/local/bin or whatever
>>--bindir is set to for configure of -make.
> If GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT/Tools is not in your PATH, then GNUstep is either
> not installed, or completely unusable - and your configure should fail in that
> case. ;-)

OK, I guess I missing the point of the pkg-config/gnustep-config
discussion.  I admit that I'm confused about role/intent of all of these
configuration files and relocaction capabilities.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]