Re: GNOME vs GNU gcc & glibc

[Gleef <dzol virtual-yellow com>]

On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Sergio Brandano wrote:
> >>  Things would be much easier if GNOME were distributed
> >>  (and installed) like X11.
> 
> > What aspect of the X11 distribution system are you suggesting we emulate?
> 
>  I have counted 53 tar-balls for the GNOME project. I would prefer
>  GNOME to first come clean and free of applications; just the
>  libraries and the core of the project should be left. All the rest
>  shall come by side, just like netscape and xemacs are not part of X11.
>  At that point, all the tar-balls shall be merged together in a unique
>  tar-ball. If it is large, you can split it in parts. A single run of
>  configure will then prepare the source tree for compilation. A single
>  run of make will compile all the sources. This makes the life easier
>  for this *single*, although complex, project. 

The core of GNOME is three tarballs:
  gnome-libs
  gnome-core
  mc

Having them separate allows for easier upgrading.  For example if there
are bugs fixed in gnome-libs, you don't necessarily want a new version of
gnome-core or mc.  Also, it accomodates the fact that mc is on a
_completely_ different release cycle than the rest of GNOME.

The tarballs beyond that are optional.  Different users will want a
different set of programs and features on their system.  Having separate
tarballs for each logical grouping accomodates this.  


> An additional point is the following. Why should one mess up the
> system by installing the above 53+ tar-balls in /usr ?

I don't know, why?  They would have to go out of their way to mess up
their system in that way.  The default directory when compiling a tarball
is /usr/local.  None of the documentation suggests using a prefix of /usr,
that's essentially reserved for distributors (as per the FHS and the
corresponding standards for the various Unixes).


> Yes, I made my attempt to install GNOME in /sw/gnome, and I reported
> the problems I encountered. The X11 comes clean into his very own
> /usr/X11R6, so why not having something like /usr/GNOME ?

Because /usr/local is a much more standard default.  It also requires
little to no work on most systems to get binaries working in
/usr/local/bin and libraries in /usr/local/lib.  If we used a default of
/usr/GNOME, than you would have to edit your system configuration just to
run GNOME.  That's fine for people like you and I who deliberately put
GNOME out of the way, but not for someone who is learning the system and
doesn't even know how to change the default.


> The additional advantage for doing this is that, like Xfree98, one can
> download the official (and tested) binary, and use it withouth bothering
> too much about which compiler, which libs etc.

I don't know about XFree98, but XFree86 supports many fewer platforms than
GNOME does.  Nobody has the equipment to produce binaries for every
platform GNOME supports.  Nor do we want to pick favorites, and only
release "official" binaries for a few favorite systems.  Therefore, we
release tarballs, any binary release is unofficial, and we rely on
volunteers to produce the binaries.

-Gleef