[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?

From: Sungjin Chun
Subject: Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:58:09 +0900

 I also think that rpm packages are for users, especially for
novice and should be flattened and if anyone who wants to
develop multi platform application then he should install
un flattened, deep dicrectory structured GNUstep from
source package and I think he can install these packages
easily :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Relson" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?

> At 05:13 PM 1/9/01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> >David Relson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > I'd vote for the flattened structure.  I well remember my introduction
> > > the multilevel structure and I didn't like it.  After I learned my way
> > > around it, and modified GNUmakefile.postamble to add a "cp $target ."
> > > whatever), I don't mind it as much.  Also Nextstep/Openstep use a flat
> > > structure.
> >
> >That's because NeXTSTEP and  OPENSTEP could store several architecture
> >binaries in  the Mach-O exectuables.  However, this did not  work with
> >OPENSTEP/MS-Windows-NT, where they had  to add a MS-Windows executable
> >along with the Mach-O in the application package. Quite messy.
> You're referring to "fat" binaries.  As I recall to build them, you would
> first compile and build for the individual architectures and would then
> combine the executables.  Compilation creates directories with names
> combining architecture and mode, e.g. obj-i386-debug for debug objects and
> obj-i386-opt for optimized.  When I voted for the flattened structure, I
> was thinking of this directory structure.
> Also, the multilevel structure is appropriate for someone generating
> executables for different cpu architectures and operating systems.  I
> GNUstep newbies will be more interested in generating programs for their
> current machines.  If we can keep life simple for them, I think it would
> good.  As they learn more and their horizons expand, then they may want to
> switch to the multilevel structure.
> Thinking of my situation, where I initially developed commercial
> Objective-C software for NextStep, then OpenStep and have now moved it to
> Linux, I control the target environment and have no need for anything
> besides i686-linux.
> This, of course, is how I use GNUstep.  YMMV.
> David
> >I vote for  the multilevel structure, by default,  in the distribution
> >packages. Up to the installer  application to propose an option to the
> >user  to  install  only  for  one architecture  (and  then  optionnaly
> >flatten), or to install for a selection of architectures.
> >
> >
> >--
> >__Pascal Bourguignon__    PGP Key ID:      0xEF5E9966
> >mailto:address@hidden    PGP fingerprint: 00 F5 7B DB CA 51 8A AD 04 5B
> >http://informatimago.free.fr/index         6C DE 32 60 16 8E EF 5E 99 66
> >
> >() Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against html email and Microsoft
> >attachments.
> >/\ Software patents are endangering the computer industry all around the
> >world.
> >    Join the
> > LPF:     http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/      http://petition.eurolinux.org/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> David Relson                   Osage Software Systems, Inc.
> address@hidden       Ann Arbor, MI 48103
> www.osagesoftware.com          tel:  734.821.8800
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

reply via email to

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