[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregor Hoffleit) wrote on 21.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
