Re: Was GNUstep ready for GNUstep ?

[Yen-Ju Chen]

On 4/28/07, Wolfgang Sourdeau <wsourdeau@inverse.ca> wrote:
> I don't see how keeping some variables around would not have been
> possible. Even by noting them as "deprecated" and waiting for a few
> more release before removing them. That's always the case during an
> intelligent migration process. "GNUSTEP_INSTALLATION_DIR" is probably
> a variable which was possible to keep and that most modules are
> counting on...
>
> Maybe the goals that were targetted are valid. Maybe they were reached
> correctly. But it's also important to think about the people who
> depend on such a package before causing so much incompatibility.
> Unless you can prove that keeping things compatible would harm the
> intended process, I consider that way of doing things as stupid.

 For old applications, they will break one way or another.
 If it is not by gnustep-make, it will be by others later.
 The "2.0" release of gnustep-make is a good indication of major changes,
 otherwise, it will be 1.14 as gnustep-base.
 While I am not an official figure to say so,
 most major updates usually break old application, like GTK-2.0, Lucene 2.0,
 Ruby 2.0 (not yet), etc.
 Usually the 1.9.x release are the last one for backward compatibility.
 I think it is better to ask project maintainers to update for
gnustep-make 2.0.

 Yen-Ju

> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep