[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SSL bundle
Re: SSL bundle
Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:33:04 +0100
Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (X11/20070801)
David Ayers wrote:
> Nicola Pero schrieb:
>> It would be nice instead for the author of the bundle to be able to
>> control if gnustep-gui should be used when linking or not; ie, if it's
>> a "GUI bundle"
>> or a "non-GUI bundle". :-)
>> Maybe a gnustep-make variable to switch from GUI bundles to non-GUI
>> ones ?
>> Something like
>> include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/common.make
>> BUNDLE_NAME = MyBundle
>> MyBundle_NEEDS_GUI = NO
>> include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/bundle.make
>> that would be recognized (only by new versions of gnustep) to mean
>> that gnustep-gui should not be linked in even
>> if available/installed.
>> If the variable is omitted, gnustep-gui would be linked in by default
>> (if available), as it happens now.
>> Comments on the idea are welcome ;-)
> I think you should consider deprecating the automatic inclusion of
> gui.make by:
> - moving the current gui.make from Additional to Auxiliary
> - having a new gui.make in Additional use the technique above to insure
> backward compatibility for at least the next release
> - yet emit a warning that automatic inclusion is deprecated.
> I think projects like ProjectCenter and ProjectManager should be able to
> include the correct -make file fragments based on their project type.
That may be fine for server applications but all project out there that
rely on gui.make being included automatically will fail in the future
and for now would result in a deprecation message. What I could see as
an exceptable solution is to have Nicolas explicit flag to not include
gui.make or introduce new make templates like non-gui-application and
not include gui.make there.
In most cases it does not cause any trouble to always include gui.make.
Only on already inconsistent systems we should be able to produce a
better warning message and fall back to something sensible. The ability
to link without gui is a nice add-on, that should be possible, but not
on the cost of breaking most applications out there.
- SSL bundle, Thomas Gamper, 2008/02/08
- Re: SSL bundle, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2008/02/08
- Re: SSL bundle, Nicola Pero, 2008/02/08
- Re: SSL bundle, Aria Stewart, 2008/02/08
- Re: SSL bundle, David Ayers, 2008/02/10
- Re: SSL bundle, Sašo Kiselkov, 2008/02/10
- Re: SSL bundle,
Fred Kiefer <=
- Re: SSL bundle, David Chisnall, 2008/02/10
- Re: SSL bundle, David Ayers, 2008/02/11