From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: German Arias <german@xelalug.org>
Subject: Re: GNU Guix 0.2 released
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 22:46:53 -0600
Message-ID: <CAPNe0kuOjCSLsV3MQddOetX0HYAdc10JeikE-awsbTbBjUVT8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <375355badf71ed580ae1ecced2e4ecec@german-desktop>
	<87bo8adgpf.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60184)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <german@xelalug.org>) id 1UdCZH-0004VJ-1z
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 00:47:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <german@xelalug.org>) id 1UdCZC-0004w4-FZ
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 00:46:58 -0400
Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a]:46243)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <german@xelalug.org>) id 1UdCZC-0004vt-BY
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 00:46:54 -0400
Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id bs12so179764qab.8
	for <bug-guix@gnu.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87bo8adgpf.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludovic_Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

2013/5/16, Ludovic Court=E8s <ludo@gnu.org>:
>
> IIRC GNUstep packages don=92t use the GNU build system (./configure &&
> make), but rather gnustep-make, right?

The installation of gnustep packages (make, base, gui and back) is in the n=
ormal
way: ./configure, make & make install. The difference is that the last thre=
e
packages use gnustep-make instead of GNU make. But depending of the
configuration of gnustep's enviroment, the end user doesn't notice any
difference.
Because the name of gnustep-make tool is also "make". I don't know how the
system can deal two tools named "make". But I think the trick is in
the fact that
gnustep's packages use GNUmakefiles instead of makefiles.

The only difference is that if the system don't know about the gnustep
tools. The
user will need run the gnustep script, something like ".
/usr/.../GNUstep.sh", to set
up the variables of gnustep environment.

The rest of packages is other history. Many of them only use: make &
make install.
Here "make" is "gnustep-make", And with the apps made with gnustep, as far =
as I
remember, only GWorkspace uses ./configure.

>
> If that is the case, a good way to help with GNUstep packaging would be
> to implement a =91gnustep-build-system=92 embodying GNUstep=92s build sys=
tem
> idioms.  That is a bit more involved, but I (or others here) can help.
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo=92.
>

Germ=E1n.