Re: [RFC] Header organization of -base & -gui

[David Ayers]

Nicola Pero wrote:

> Yes - good summary - I agree but let me say that there is no special
> reason why the directory should be called gnustep/base.  Actually, I have
> reasons to argue that it should *not* be called gnustep/base, and that we
> should change that name!
>  
This was what I was waiting / fearing / hoping for :-/ ...

> One reason I'd like to get rid of the gnustep/base/ directory (and all
> gnustep/ directories in general) is that I'd like if gnustep-make could do
> without adding
>
> -I/home/nicola/GNUstep/Library/Headers/gnustep 
> -I/usr/GNUstep/Local/Library/Headers/gnustep 
> -I/usr/GNUstep/Network/Library/Headers/gnustep 
> -I/usr/GNUstep/System/Library/Headers/gnustep
>
> to the compiler command line on *-gnu-*.  That would be an improvement for
> all *-gnu-* users!
Actually to acheive this, all you had to do is deprecate the usage of:
#include <base/GS*.h>
#include <gui/GS*.h>
and require
#include <gnustep/base/GS*.h>
#include <gnustep/gui/GS*.h>

> I stress that this proposal is only a sketchy starting point; for example
> all the other gnustep libraries installing stuff into gnustep/*/ would
> have to be changed to, and GNUstepBase might not be the best name/header
> directory.
>  
Yes the change would be more dramatic.  On the other hand *if* we change 
it, let's get it right this time.  I admit, I see no technical reason, 
why we shouldn't use GNUstepBase and GNUstepGui instead of gnustep/base 
and gnustep/gui.  (Well the only minor reason being that we might be 
breaking more than with my proposed "half-hearted" proposal to fix a few 
headers, but I guess that breaking is breaking...)

Can I get one or two more views from the core developers and an 
agreement on the names GNUstepBase / GNUstepGui?  I would then conceed 
to this change and start working on it (dependant of when the next 
releases are scheduled)

Cheers,
David