[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML idea
From: |
Alex Perez |
Subject: |
Re: XML idea |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:17:18 -0800 (PST) |
I am in no way advocating a fork. Read below. This project tries to
actively AVOID a fork, as a matter of fact...
> Alex Perez wrote:
> >>And that's fine, I think. So long as it's included in the core
> >>download. People shouldn't have to go download this, download that,
> >>download the other thing, just to get "portable" code to work.
> >
> > As much as I would personally like to see this happen, it likely never
> > will for a variety of reasons. First of all, this gives the impression
> > that PortabilityKit is part of the GNUstep project, which it is not. Maybe
> > a good compromise might be a script that sits in the root of core/ which
> > would auto-get portabilityKit via CVS. This could present a few lines of
> > test saying that it is not an official part of GNUstep, use, at your own
> > risk, we dont support it, blah blah blah...Would any GNUstep core members
> > care to comment on what they think of this idea?
> >
> As much as I like to see diversity, I really don't like the idea of
> forking GNUstep. We already do have myStep, which in my opinion should
> only exist as another GNUstep backend. There is no need to over play the
> differences, that may exist on the amount of Cocoa extensions which
> should be added to GNUstep. Up to now we have been able to find a
> solution for all the contributed code. It is mostly the writing of code,
> that is missing.
> What I would like to see here is a bit of configuration for the GNUstep
> libraries. If there is an OpenStep purist, he/she should be able to
> compile GNUstep base and gui with as mininal extensions to the OpenStep
> specification as possible (Here I mean a bit more than the current usage
> of STRICT_OPENSTEP). And a Cocoa aficionado could set another switch to
> get as much support as possible. The rest of us "moderates" would of
> course get the best of two worlds. But here I realize, I must be dreaming.
Yes, I suggest --with-PortabilityKit and I don't think you're dreaming at
all. I think you're on the right track af a matter of fact.
- Re: XML idea, (continued)
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Jason Clouse, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Adam Fedor, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Jason Clouse, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Adam Fedor, 2004/01/08
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Adam Fedor, 2004/01/08
- Re: XML idea, thisguyisi, 2004/01/12
- Re: XML idea, Fred Kiefer, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea,
Alex Perez <=
- Re: XML idea, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Fabien VALLON, 2004/01/08
- Re: XML idea, Nicola Pero, 2004/01/08
- Re: XML idea, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/01/08
- Re: XML idea, Adam Fedor, 2004/01/08
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/08
- Re: XML idea, Kazunobu Kuriyama, 2004/01/08
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/09
- Re: XML idea, Kazunobu Kuriyama, 2004/01/09
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/10