[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?
From: |
David Relson |
Subject: |
Re: Flattened GNUstep structure? |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:03:14 -0500 |
At 05:13 PM 1/9/01, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
David Relson <relson@osagesoftware.com> wrote:
> I'd vote for the flattened structure. I well remember my introduction to
> 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 ." (or
> 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 think
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 be
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 (o_
mailto:pjb@imaginet.fr 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 V_/
() 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.
relson@osagesoftware.com Ann Arbor, MI 48103
www.osagesoftware.com tel: 734.821.8800
- Flattened GNUstep structure?, Adam Fedor, 2001/01/09
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Sungjin Chun, 2001/01/09
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Helge Hess, 2001/01/09
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, David Relson, 2001/01/09
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2001/01/09
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?,
David Relson <=
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Sungjin Chun, 2001/01/09
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Jonathan Gapen, 2001/01/09
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Nicola Pero, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Nicola Pero, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Adam Fedor, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, David Relson, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2001/01/10
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Christian Edward Gruber, 2001/01/11
- Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2001/01/11