Re: GNUstep filesystem layout change

[Tim Harrison]

First off, I'm glad to see the layout has been changed.  Thanks for 
taking the big step!

On Monday, Apr 28, 2003, at 20:18 Canada/Eastern, Yen-Ju Chen wrote:

> Just install a clean GNUstep to see the difference. :)
> I found there is a System/Developer and System/share, which are not in 
> the document.
> Gorm install the palettes into System/Developer/Palettes/,
> but Gorm.app in System/Application/.

I think that the Developer structure should go away.

In all honesty, I think that the system shouldn't differentiate between 
standard users and developers.  The same environment is used to run 
applications as develop them.  Only applications have different 
functions.

Look at it this way:  if a user wanted to install ONLY the stuff 
necessary to run apps, they'd install all of GNUstep.  There isn't any 
"development" specific stuff, aside from things like ProjectCenter and 
Gorm.  I suppose one could argue that -make is more for development, 
but you wouldn't be able to run a user environment without it.

As for Gorm's installation of Palettes, I think they should go into the 
System/Library/ApplicationSupport directory.  Putting them into 
/System/Developer seems kind of silly.  From what I've seen, Gorm's 
Palettes are the only things that go into the Developer structure.  I 
suggest just removing that Developer structure, and using the 
ApplicationSupport directory (or Bundles, whatever -- that seems to be 
more of a personal preference argument), or even the User Domain 
(~/username/GNUstep/Library/ApplicationSupport?).

> Since most applications put their bundles in System/Bundles,
> maybe System/Bundles can link to System/ApplicationSupport as 
> System/Makefiles.
> So applications which install their bundles into 
> System/Bundles/<AppName>
> will actually install into System/ApplicationSupport/<AppName>
> To me, they are the same with different names.

Well, I figured that ApplicationSupport would hold more than just 
bundles.  I thought it would contain potential configuration files (not 
edited by the user directly), additional supporting files (how generic 
of me, I know), AND bundles.  That way, everything needed to "support" 
an "application" would be in one place.

If Bundles was symlinked to ApplicationSupport, then Bundles would be a 
misnomer.  If the intention is, indeed, to move bundles into the 
ApplicationSupport directory, than the Bundles directory should be 
deprecated.

Of course, I should also add that I haven't seen the new layout yet. :) 
 I'm going by what I've been reading on the list, and anecdotal 
references on IRC.  I'm also running low on sleep, so if any of this 
doesn't make sense, just point it out, and I'll clarify once I've had a 
nap. :)


Tim Harrison
tim@linuxstep.org
http://www.linuxstep.org/