Re: Flattened GNUstep structure? No!

[Christian Edward Gruber]

If we were to do a shallow multi-platform approach, then I think a simply
$(OS)-$(ARCH) or $(OS)$(MAJORVERSION)-$(ARCH) would be sufficient.

linux-i386
openbsd-alpha

or maybe

freebsd2-i386
freebsd3-i386

if they are sufficiently different so as to constitute a separate platform
target, which is sometimes the case.

regards,
Christian.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Helge Hess" <helge.hess@skyrix.com>
To: <pjb@imaginet.fr>
Cc: <nicola@brainstorm.co.uk>; <fedor@doc.com>; <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Flattened GNUstep structure? No!


> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote:
> > Not a  point against  deep directory structure,  but on  the contrary,
> > showing that it should be deepened,  or at least, we should add sub os
> > tags     such    as     gnu-linux-redhat-6.1,    gnu-linux-redhat-7.0,
> > gnu-linux-mandrake-7.0, gnu-linux-debian-potatoe...
>
> Hm, I think this is wrong. Actually most (compile time) stuff will be
> portable between the different Linux versions. Eg we build all our SuSE
> and Redhat pkg on a SuSE 6.2, which works perfect.
>
> We had most problems with changing glibc's (eg when going SuSE 6.1->SuSE
> 6.2), maybe the libc could be reflected.
>
> > (*) Even  if the  range has reduced,  I understand  that MS-Windows-NT
> >  also runs  on a range of  different architectures. Who are  we to say
> >  that  no  MS-Windows-NT  administrator  may  install  a  shared  deep
> >  directory  structure for his  GNUstep system  and applications  to be
> >  used on both MS-Windows-NT-i586 and MS-Windows-NT-alpha, or whatever.
>
> You have indeed different archs on NT, even without the cpu ! Eg
> ix86-mingw32 and ix86-cygwin32 and ix86-uwin and ...
>
> Helge
> --
> SKYRIX Software AG - http://www.skyrix.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>
>