gstep-make 2.0 Re: gstep-base Re: [OGo-Developer] OGo Invoice Application

[Helge Hess]

On 02.01.2008, at 12:38, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
>> OK, but how would it continue then? SOPE must know where to search,
>> und unlike the current solution using "GNUSTEP_WEB_APPS" at the
>> compile time (eg passing it in using -D...) would make the binary  
>> non-
>> relocatable! (because GNUSTEP_WEB_APPS is indeed a compile-time  
>> path).
>>
> I don't understand why it then is less relocatable than it is right  
> now.
> I did not meant to define an absolute path, just only a relative  
> subdir.

If you do that, it would be OK. But GNUSTEP_WEB_APPS is, AFAIK, an  
absolute path? You would need something like GNUSTEP_WEB_APPS_RELDIR.

>> So what is required is a way to query GNUstep for the value of
>> "GNUSTEP_WEB_APPS".
>>
>> [BTW: GNUSTEP_WEB_APPS is not the best place for SOPE stuff. This is
>> for the gnustep-web binaries]
> Anything better in mind? I'm open for everything, and I think Nicola  
> would
> add also new Variables/path locations if they are reasonable.

Maybe SOPEApplications? Don't know. We could just install them in  
WOApps like before.
Or we always build them in tools and place them in Tools.

>>> When the whole process then gets well documented in a INSTALL file  
>>> in the
> sources, then I think, this will stop the "where do I find rpm for  
> Distri
> XXX", or other similar question that show up there from time to time  
> on the
> users ml.

Well, that belongs into discuss. Adam already said that he would  
prefer to keep packages. And it definitely is an issue for the  
majority of the OGo users not to have packages.

> At least, for OpenBSD I'd like to create ports files. I do all gnustep
> upgrade stuff, because the gnustep-make and gnustep-base packages  
> are well
> maintained there. I'd like to start creating ports on them?

IMHO its a bad idea to base work on 'official' packages. The problem  
is that GNUstep broke the ABI quite often in the past. This is quite  
an issue because you get at least one, more likely 2 releases per  
year. Now if you have 5 different distris, they are unlikely to always  
have the same ABI.

This issue doesn't matter that much for GS developers because they  
always work in trunk. But for thirdparty guys its a mess.

Actually you experience the issue first-place! :-) You can't use OGo  
on OpenBSD because gstep-make API incompatible. While Debian is  
(AFAIK) still on gstep-make 1.13 (which is why SOGo has no issues).


>> BTW: we would also need to create a gnustep-make/gnustep-base vendor
>> branch to stabilize it for OGo usage.
> also what about sogo?

Yes, thats also an issue.

> At least there  the packaging constraint is not a problem, as just  
> there are none.

I think Inverse now provides packages. AFAIK they use the system  
GNUstep (1.13).

> But the sogo makefiles have to be updated too.

Yes.

> Wolfgang, do you are here on the list too?
> I could update these for sogo too, as I would like to see sogo to  
> work on
> OpenBSD too, and then create ports ;)

Si! Probably best to just do it and then send a patch to Wolfgang. But  
its better to start a new thread on sogo@ogo.

Greets,
   Helge
-- 
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/