Re: [Gnustep-cvs] r31321 - in /tools/make/trunk: ChangeLog GNUstep.conf.in configure configure.ac

[Riccardo Mottola]

Hi,
> > I think that patch should be reverted for the time being.  Changing the default 
> > choices
> > has a massive impact because most users never deviate from the default! ;-)
> >      
> Exactly why I did it ... after yet *ANOTHER* complaint from a user on the 
> mailing list about being unable to use GNUstep because of the issue of the 
> default installation not working.  I know that all the user has to do is read 
> the INSTALL document or any of the installation HOWTOs etc and source 
> GNUstep.sh, but the fact is that most people just don't bother.  IMO we need a 
> system that just works.
>
>    
I think you both nail the point: people use the default, people want 
something that work.

I'm absolutely against having FHS as a default. It is against the 
OpenStep/Cocoa philosophy! The best layout is the GNUstep layout with 
prefix=/ in my opinion, although using /usr/GNUstep is sensible because 
it is not such a great "clash" in a mixed environment.

It is good that we support FHS because it is useful when integrating 
with the "rest" if a uer just wants to use one or two gnustep 
applications or just wants to use command-line tools. However a whoel 
desktop, and that is what I strive to, laid out as FHS is ugly.
> I strongly disagree about leaving it until a release ... how can 
> people try it out, decide what they think, offer changes etc if they 
> never see it until it's officially released? The point about svn trunk 
> is for people to try out new things.
>    
I think you are very correct. Although I do not share the change at all, 
in case it is a must (and this is true for other changes too) it is best 
to have it in and tested by ourselves. Well, in my case it means that I 
need another option to configure, like the option of SYSTEM and LOCAL 
domains.
> I don't really mind the change being reverted if you like (the main point being 
> to get people to actually do something about the problem), but I think it might 
> make more sense to revert to the old behavior *after* everyone has had a chance 
> to consider the idea and let me know that I'm an idiot, rather than assuming 
> I'm an idiot in advance.
>
>    
The fact that you aren't an idiot was already stressed by others. 
Perhaps this change was just a bit sudden.

Riccardo