Re: GNUstep and /usr/GNUstep...
flight@mathi.uni-heidelberg.DE (Gregor Hoffleit) wrote on 21.02.98 in <[🔎] 9802212110.AA10248@mathi.uni-heidelberg.DE>:
> Vincent Renardias <vincent@waw.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > distributions. Frankly speaking, this looks a bit like the
> `C:\WINDOWS'
> > > approach: just add a new directory for your programs and you don't
> have
> > > to worry about cooperation with other programs.
> > >
> > > In the next step, we'll see GNUstep add-on packages which also need
> to
> > > install into C:\WINDOWS^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H/usr/GNUstep. Is this a
> nice
> > > solution??
>
> The strange thing is that this works nearly perfectly for NeXTstep.
> Maybe rpm/deb are just a cure for a design flaw in the Unix file layout
> ? :-) But I don't want to start a flame ware...
You're confusing things here.
What is good about the .deb/.rpm approach is having a system that knows
what was installed where. This has nothing to do with file system layout.
(Well, maybe except for there _being_ a file system layout at all.)
And the reason it works well for NeXTstep is that they _also_ use such a
system (the installer + receipt files).
Now, the reasons for having a good filesystem layout apply equally to,
say, Slackware, which last time I looked had no package management system
to speak of.
Read the FSSTND or the FHS. They're not about package management at all.
> The
> strong point about FHS/FSSTND is distributing things across filesystems
> according to the criterias `host-dependency' and `need for writability'.
> GNUstep chose other priorities since their focus was a different one.
> The nice thing is that GNUstep apps therefore should not need any fancy
> postinst magic ;-)
"Therefore"? How has the one any relation at all to the other?
MfG Kai
Reply to: