On 12 Oct 1999 21:38:42 +0200, Lars Gullik Bj°nnes wrote:
>I use pkgdata_SCRIPTS = configure
>
>will add configure.cmd also _or_ should configure.cmd only be
>installed on a OS/2 system? (and then not configure)
>
Is configure.cmd of any use for Unix???
The situation for OS/2 install is a bit different. Dr. Veith enforced
standard places for X/2 installations:
binaries (in $(PATH)):
$(X11ROOT)/XFree86/bin/
man pages:
$(X11ROOT)/XFree86/man/man*/
shared data:
$(X11ROOT)/XFree86/lib/X11/
here:
$(X11ROOT)/XFree86/lib/X11/lyx/*
with subdirs:
bind, clipart, development, doc, example, images, kbd, layouts,
reLyX (with scripts, not in $(path)), templates, tex.
user modified versions:
$(HOME)/.lyx/*
Those paths are absolutely fixed and must not be changed. (If you
fiddle with them, X might even refuse to start up).
As with shell scripts, my best experiences are with the new port of the
small Berkeley Shell (usually known as 'ash' or 'bsh'), which (unlike
other shells) is nearly fully compatible to SYSV standard shell. So it
might be a possibility to replace the Rexx scripts with SYSV scripts,
that should of course call modified subscript, which could be simpler
than the default scripts. We could even add ash.exe to the binary
distribution (some 70 k) like perl for OS/2 distribution adds sh.exe of
pdksh.
I think maintenance could become simpler then, because supporting all
those different versions of the standard Rexx interpreter
implementations IMHO has fun factor 0 (yet Rexx is the - very complex -
*standard* scripting language for OS/2 (and MVS, OS400, etc.) and
generally more powerful through GUI, TCPIP and OBject extensions, so
this may be questionable). Moreover Rexx is sooo complicated ;-) and I
wouldn't believe that you e.g. liked a build mechanism on tk/tcl.
What do others think?
Regards,
Arnd
