On 17 Feb 2007, at 02:11, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2/16/07, Nicola Pero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt, thanks for your comments.
I understand your desire to centralize the configuration, but there
is an actual reason why GNUstep.sh is a pure shell script. ;-)
It's a machine-independent program that can be in a machine-
independent
directory
and that can then be used to bootstrap the fat binary system. :-)
Yes, my take is, people using weird configurations should not mind
doing
weird things GNUstep.sh can still set up the achitecture specific
environment variables
for 'step-config' to then use.
non-flattened configurations must then continue sourcing GNUstep.sh.
I feel very strongly that that is the wrong philosophy ... while we
obviously need to devote most attention to the needs of the majority,
we should also try to make things easy for the minorities, and
changes that make things harder for the minorities (or needlessly
different for different groups) really need very good justification.
I'm also pretty dismayed by the cavalier attitude towards portability
(cross platform support) that I've seen in this thread.
While the initial points raised about previously missing features in
gnustep-make (needing to set a variable to locate the make system and
the lack of a facility to report on the presence of libraries for use
in autoconf/configure) were quite valid, the desire to solve them in
ways which don't benefit all developers/setups equally seems very
much mistaken. Where something needs improving, let's do it for
everyone.
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
