Re: [RFC] Header organization of -base & -gui

[Adam Fedor]

On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 09:42 AM, David Ayers wrote:

> Adam Fedor wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 05:49 AM, David Ayers wrote:
> >
> > > Well this is a decision that just has to be made explicit before we 
> > > can continue...
> > >
> > > a) We leave the gnustep/ directory (and also leave gnustep/base, 
> > > gnustep/gui) and install Foudation (when applicable) at top level 
> > > (well, with --disable-flattened under the library combo) and require 
> > > -make to install gnustep.
> > > b) We move everything to the the top level and support custom OS X / 
> > > PB projects.
> > >
> > > I personally have no preference.  Yet, I would prefer a final 
> > > decision soon though.  And we should at least inform -discuss about 
> > > the decision before we commit anything affecting this.
> >
> > I'd rather not add too many top-level header directories. But one of 
> > the points of these changes was to support packages like frameworks. 
> > So we should probably do (b) but be picky about what we want to 
> > install...
>
> So, you are saying that we should keep the Headers/gnustep directory 
> but just not install gnustep/gui and gnustep/base?  But we still 
> should move unicode as it's part of -baseadd, right?  Well, as long as 
> we're sure that other projects won't be moving I guess I could live 
> with it.  I just wouldn't like to move headers again in following 
> release cycles.  (Maybe we do need more time to fiure this out.)

No, I was saying I was conflicted about what we should do, but that it 
was probably best just to remove the gnustep directory and move 
everything (i.e. everything that is an independent project) to the 
top-level Header directory. I think unicode is part of baseadd and 
should go there (GNustepBase/unicode?)


> > Yes. The back headers were installed when the API was young and some 
> > developers needed them to get access to X Windows. I don't think 
> > that's necessary anymore except in the rare case where some one is 
> > trying to implement something very backend specific and the API to 
> > handle it isn't defined.
>
> Can I interpret this as an "OK not to install"?  I think the /rare 
> cases/ can rely on private local declarations.
Yes.

> > Doesn't matter to me. The Foundation Extensions is completely 
> > unsupported (as far as I am concerned) and technically shouldn't even 
> > be in the repository (wrong license). I've kept it there because the 
> > db and gsweb library needed it. Hopefully we can transition away from 
> > it.
>
>
> I'll work up a patch for db to use -baseadd instead, while waiting on 
> the "the decision".  Richard already fixed gsweb.
Well, I though db was obsoleted by gdl2? If you want to patch it, 
that's fine, but don't do extra work on my account...