discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Cocotron


From: Gregory John Casamento
Subject: Re: Cocotron
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:07:46 -0800 (PST)

Matt,

They would still be gnustep-foundation and gnustep-appkit.    The idea is to 
have Foundation and AppKit in the name so that the users/developers can readily 
associate it with the equivalent libraries from Cocoa.

Later, GJC
--
Gregory Casamento
## GNUstep Chief Maintainer

----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Rice <address@hidden>
To: Gregory John Casamento <address@hidden>; Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf 
<address@hidden>
Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>; Richard Frith-Macdonald 
<address@hidden>; address@hidden
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:48:47 AM
Subject: Re: Cocotron

I'm not sure if renaming to AppKit and Foundation is a
good thing, (though it'd surely simplify the base/gui
makefiles a little which i'd be in favor of)

unfortunately it would make it harder to install
gnustep along side os x, where if we were compiling
things as native-libs (which i believe was the
suggestion, or maybe i'm wrong), people have done this
in the past to use profiling tools, i've never tried
it... 

maybe someone with some experience using GNUstep
alongside osx will chime in.


on os x, GNUstep binaries would have to be run with
DYLD_FRAMEWORK_PATH set, where normal binaries would
have to run without it, in order to find the correct
version of appkit...

i may still have patches to compile gui and base as
native-libs named Foundation/AppKit though, i'll look
for them...

--- Gregory John Casamento <address@hidden>
wrote:

> Yes, that's what I'm thinking.... I'm just saying
> it's best to do this after the next release.  :)
>  
> --
> Gregory Casamento
> ## GNUstep Chief Maintainer
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
> <address@hidden>
> To: Gregory John Casamento
> <address@hidden>
> Cc: Richard Frith-Macdonald
> <address@hidden>; "address@hidden"
> <address@hidden>; address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:33:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Cocotron
> 
> 
> Am 29.12.2006 um 16:36 schrieb Gregory John
> Casamento:
> 
> > I believe that renaming is a good idea.  It would
> make it clearer  
> > what's what.   We'll need, of course, to do it
> when we have a  
> > release which breaks backwards compatibility.
> 
> How about keeping symlinks for the existing stuff
> being created to  
> ensure that?
> 
> >
> >
> > Later, GJC
> 
> regards, Lars
> 
> > --
> > Gregory Casamento
> > ## GNUstep Chief Maintainer
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
> <address@hidden>
> > To: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
> <address@hidden>
> > Cc: Gregory John Casamento
> <address@hidden>;  
> > "address@hidden" <address@hidden>;
> address@hidden
> > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 3:05:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: Cocotron
> >
> >
> > On 29 Dec 2006, at 01:37, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Am 28.12.2006 um 17:37 schrieb Gregory John
> Casamento:
> >>
> >>> Nikolaus,
> >>>
> >>> They would be wrong.   GNUstep not an OS.
> >>
> >> They might be wrong, but it's not their fault. If
> we want people to
> >> get it right we'll have to explain it to them in
> a catchy way -
> >> even if that might include to rename gnustep-base
> to gnustep-
> >> foundation and gnustep-gui to gnustep-appkit.
> >
> > I actually have no problem at all with the idea of
> renaming ... in
> > fact, for compatibility it might be nice if we
> could build them so
> > that they could be used both as libraries and
> frameworks at the same
> > time, so that cocoa developers could link to them
> the same way they
> > do on macos.  I don't know how to modify makefiles
> etc to build them
> > that way, but it can't really be all that hard.
> >


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 







reply via email to

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