Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

David Relson <relson@osagesoftware.com> wrote:
> I'd vote for the flattened structure.  I well remember my introduction to 
> the multilevel structure and I didn't like it.  After I learned my way 
> around it, and modified GNUmakefile.postamble to add a "cp $target ." (or 
> whatever), I don't mind it as much.  Also Nextstep/Openstep use a flat 
> structure.

That's because NeXTSTEP and  OPENSTEP could store several architecture
binaries in  the Mach-O exectuables.  However, this did not  work with
OPENSTEP/MS-Windows-NT, where they had  to add a MS-Windows executable
along with the Mach-O in the application package. Quite messy.

I vote for  the multilevel structure, by default,  in the distribution
packages. Up to the installer  application to propose an option to the
user  to  install  only  for  one architecture  (and  then  optionnaly
flatten), or to install for a selection of architectures.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__    PGP Key ID:      0xEF5E9966                     (o_
mailto:pjb@imaginet.fr    PGP fingerprint: 00 F5 7B DB CA 51 8A AD 04 5B  //\
http://informatimago.free.fr/index         6C DE 32 60 16 8E EF 5E 99 66  V_/

() Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against html email and Microsoft attachments.
/\ Software patents are endangering the computer industry all around the world.
   Join the LPF:     http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/      http://petition.eurolinux.org/