Re: Legacy applications and headers

[Marcus Müller]

On 19.03.2004, at 16:40, David Ayers wrote:

> Marcus Müller wrote:
>
>
> I believe the test was intended to insure when GDL2 is build against 
> other OPENSTEP-like Foundation libraries (like libFoundation maybe) 
> that we only wanted to use the precompiled headers for Apple's 
> Foundation, so therefore we need a test against some marker of that 
> particular Foundation.  I was under the impression that 
> NeXT_Foundation_LIBRARY was predefined by the Foundation headers, I 
> guess I was wrong.  Maybe there is another marker we could use?

NeXT_Foundation_LIBRARY is defined in gstep-make (library-combo.make). 
This goes for the other "well-known" third party libraries as well. 
You're correct that these would need to be included in the test also. 
However, I don't know if that really makes sense. The only two 
foundations in use in a larger number of projects are GNU_BASE_LIBRARY 
and NeXT_Foundation_LIBRARY anyways.

> Now as Skyrix seems to have abandoned libFoundation (and I have no 
> idea if GDL2 would have ever worked with it) we might have a true 
> binary situation (ie. either GNUstep or Cocoa).  So the proposal may 
> be a practical approach.  Yet, I'd like it to be consistent with the 
> -core libraries, so if -core (ie. -baseadd) takes up this convention, 
> -gdl2 and -gsweb can follow.  (And as we include -baseadd headers 
> you'll need the consistency also.)

Yes, that would also make sense, given that the MacOSX compatibility 
framework (GNUstepBase) offers some of the core headers. I haven't 
checked if such constructs actually are in some of its headers - I 
didn't stumble across build problems so I guess no, but consistency 
isn't a bad idea anyways. :-)

Cheers,

  Marcus

--
Marcus Mueller  .  .  .  crack-admin/coder ;-)
Mulle kybernetiK  .  http://www.mulle-kybernetik.com
Current projects: finger address@hidden