[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC: Rewriting of the GNUstep User FAQ, specifically re: Frameworks
From: |
Matt Rice |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC: Rewriting of the GNUstep User FAQ, specifically re: Frameworks] |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT) |
--- Nicola Pero <address@hidden> wrote:
> even if we get "real framework" support under
> GNU/Linux, I would still
> keep the core libraries as libraries on GNU/Linux,
this seems unlikely to happen without some sort of
divine intervention.
why not have them use 'native-library.make'?
> because the "real
> framework" support wouldn't necessarily work on all
> past/future machines,
> will depend on linker support etc.
we should be able to autoconf this..
i should be able to come up with ld.so/ld/binutils
macros to detect "real" frameworks and be able to set
hacky frameworks or libraries as 'native-libraries'
(instead of being platform based)...
though base/gui are kindof weird with the header dir
name and the library name being different...
and other makefiles would need to start using
$(FND_LIBS) $(GUI_LIBS) instead of -lgnustep-gui and
-lgnustep-base when compiling to be usable when
base/gui as frameworks was enabled...
also ADDITIONAL_NATIVE_LIBS is really helpful wrt this
and seems to have been unused in the things using
native-libraries i've looked at (instead using
ifeq's).
anyhow should mention i have base and gui hacked here
as native-libraries using real frameworks, but no real
improvements to make yet though...
matt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com