[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PATCH: NSPathUtilities etc

From: David Ayers
Subject: Re: PATCH: NSPathUtilities etc
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:14:14 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Sheldon Gill wrote:

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:04, Adam Fedor wrote:

On Thursday, March 4, 2004, at 04:58 AM, David Ayers wrote:

I understand that you are trying to address complicated issues.  I
must admit that I'm not convinced that this is right approach.  OTOH,
I don't have the cycles to come up with a better solution so I won't
stand in the way of progress.  But I have a few mechanical issues I
haven't addressed before.  So I would be grateful if you could post
your patch again, possibly in coherent separate posts so that the
issues can be addressed individually.  I know its extra work but I
really think it is needed here.

If you have concerns, please let us know. You might highlight something that has been missed.

What are the "mechanical issues" you need to address?

I only had a quick scan, but IIRC the patch (conditionally) installed headers (made them public) that should very likely remain private. I'll check the archives again, it you can't post the revised version.

I will post the patch, updated to incorporate comments. I'm not sure I can achieve separate posts for all issues because of the inter-dependencies but I will look into what can be done to separate issues cleanly.

The issues or questions raised so far:

1) To conf or not to conf
2) Temporary directory and temporary files
3) Win32 temporary path discovery mechanism
4) Win32 Registry usage
5) How and where compile-time definitions are created
6) GNUstep-make dependencies

I'm note sure, but I had the feeling the LD_LIBRARY_PATH mechanism (wrt. configuring and installing multiple GNUstep hierarchies with different --prefix) would break. I may be wrong though. I'll really try to find some time to look at in the next few days. I was just hoping I could do it in smaller packages.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]