[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Nicola Pero
Subject: Re: [RFC] Header organization of -base & -gui
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:53:50 +0100 (BST)

> >I very much like using library-combos (such as 'gnu-gnu-gnu') instead of
> >`gnustep' as header directories because they make clear, at least to an
> >advanced user, what we are talking about.  They are consistent with the
> >names/directories we use for object files.  People who don't need
> >library-combos (most of them) can just --enable-flattened in
> >gnustep-make's ./configure and forget about them.  People who need
> >library-combos have a single unified way of organizing headers and
> >libraries and frameworks and applications.  It will also help future
> >changes (such as simplification or advancements of library-combo support)
> >to be made consistently and simply on all areas.
> >  
> >
> As long as we don't mind the duplication of header files (for every 
> project), we can do this.

Yes (good point!).  Speaking for myself, I don't mind.  Library object
files are usually much bigger even when stripped, say 4 times bigger on
average after stripping, and we always installing multiple copies of them
when installing the library multiple times with different library combos.  
Installing the headers as well makes the setup up to 25% bigger, but it
looks acceptable.

I suppose we could have a smart installation mode where by using symlinks
library headers are installed only once (if that is appropriate - for
Foundation for example it might not be appropriate).  But it's not a very
hot issue at the moment: I wouldn't spend time on this unless there is a
real need for it, which I don't see at the moment - as you say,

> I guess if we default to --enabled-flattend then the header duplication 
> shouldn't be much of an issue.  I would be fine with it.

I agree.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]