>> There would still be maintenance, I'm afraid. Just like there is >> maintenance with gcc that has to be done. Maybe we could get some nice >> features with less effort but there'd still need to be maintenance. > > Yes, but less maintenance. GNUstep Make doesn't just build application and > framework bundles but also normal libraries and such.
Yes, but building a library is trivial compared to building a framework. :-) Most of the "maintenance" is really needed because of the need to support GNUstep-specific directory layouts, library combos, frameworks, various types of bundles and plists, etc. ;-) A good example of an open task that took a long time to implement (because of lack of manpower) is the framework support for Windows. Unfortunately, using CMake or something else wouldn't have made this easier, because someone still has to implement framework support for Windows; those packages don't have it. So instead of doing it in gnustep-make, you do it in CMake. ;-) I suggest that to reduce maintenance, we reduce the amount of 'very custom' things that we support, and try to converge into a more 'standard' setup. ;-) Thanks _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
