Re: GNUstep on OpenBSD..

[Wolfgang Lux]

Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:

> For me the Bundle binary is a shared object, and no a standalone  
> binary. I
> cannot just run it. For me, a shared object usually has a .so  
> extension.
> So I still don't know why it is not a good idea to have .so  
> extension for
> Bundle binaries.

It is not a good idea because it just adds one more platform  
dependency, making the code less maintainable. Note that not all  
systems are using the .so suffix, e.g., I'm sitting right now in front  
of an OS X machine which does not use an extension for bundle  
executables (maybe not very surprising) and which uses .dylib instead  
of .so for shared libraries. On AIX, where all objects are position  
independent by default shared libraries use the extension .a (sic!).  
Still other systems were using .shlib for shared libraries. Tracking  
these differences is just adding needless complexity given that we can  
simply load the bundle executable from a file with any extension or no  
extension at all.

> I guess there were some reasons, when it was decided how they have  
> to look
> like, and don't want to question that, but rather understand why it  
> is the way
> it is, since I don't see the reason, yet, and why there is an  
> exception
> explicitly for Windows?

I guess its because Windows refuses to load the shared object if it  
does not have the proper extension, but then I'm not a Windows expert.

Wolfgang