Re: GNOME 2.0 Desktop 'Alpha' Release

[jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>]

On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 13:41, Laszlo PETER wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> jacob berkman wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 12:29, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> > > Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc linuxweasel com> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2002-01-10 at 09:02, Matthew J. Doller wrote:
> > > > > if binary rpms are made available, would it be possible to have them be
> > > > > relocatable?  if i'm going to install an alpha of gnome2, i'd like it to
> > > > > go into /opt, or /opt/gnome2
> > > >
> > > > Well, theoretically, the RPMS are relocatable.  However, since there are
> > > > current docs on relocating RPMs, these aren't tested.  If you want to
> > > > test this feel free, and let me know where things break, and I'll see
> > > > what I can fix.
> > > >     Greg
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, we compile the location a program is installed into in
> > > libgnome, meaning that RPM is unrelocatable, even if the files are.
> > 
> > i umm thought this was supposed to be fixed in gnome 2.
> 
> Actually, there are a lot of absolute paths fixed in the binaries at
> build time. For example:
> 
> 	- locale directory
> 	- icon/pixmap directory
> 	- configuration files ($prefix/etc, $prefix/share)
> 
> It would be nice to change these to relative paths based on the location
> of the binary or some magic environment variable.

the infrastructure (GNOME_PATH and gnome_program_locate_*) are there - i
guess someone just needs to step up and fix everything (ie, someone who
wants relocatable packages).

jacob
-- 
"In fact, can you imagine anything more terrifying than a zombie clown?"
	-- moby