In case you missed it in the flurry of responses to the questions that you didn't ask, Nicola answered the one that you actually did ask:
If you configure GNUstep Make with the FHS mode, it will use the FHS layout. For Windows, the .app bundle actually does make sense, although they don't call it a .app bundle, they call it a subdirectory of C:\Program Files, but the concept is essentially the same. Programs install their binary, resources, and all dependencies inside this directory, just as they do in a .app directory on OS X. The only difference is that you launch the program by clicking on a shortcut to the .exe from the start menu or desktop, rather than by clicking on the directory. David On 19 Jun 2010, at 16:18, Jonathan Wolf wrote: > Hello Riccardo, > > I apologize if any of my comments were taken in a bad manner - I fully > admit to some ignorance to the way GNUstep works, and have found the > conversations on the dev list very insightful and helpful. =) > >> What point do you have in an .app "bundle" if you do not have the GUI app >> itself and if you want GNUstep to be a ".so"? > > The idea is to try and "mimic" the native layout of each target > platform (Windows, Linux, and Mac) while maintaining the ObjC runtime. > App bundles will be appropriate for Mac, where as stand alone > executables (and any relevant data) would be appropriate for Win/Nix. > The idea is to try and keep the nature of the GNUstep layout (with the > various folder hierarchy) restricted as much as possible. I know I > will probably get some fire for this, but again, the idea is to use > ObjC for all three systems and use GNUstep for the Windows and Linux > side (while keeping with Apple's stuff on the Mac side). > >> I think you underestimate the portability and compactness of "Foundation" >> which is what you are looking for. > > Oh not at all - I wasn't looking for compactness in terms of program > size, but rather number of dependencies and number of file system > hierarchy modifications. > > For instance, when on Mac, one has a user Library folder and program > specific Documents folder and the likes. While that is great for Mac, > this is not the way my team would like to mimic the hierarchy in a > Linux or Windows environment (keeping to a /usr/local/share in nix, or > my documents in win - just for instance). The data files relevant to > storing user preferences, etc., will still be maintained in an XML, > but that will be (on Win/Nix) local to the program directory. This is > more just an issue of trying to, again, mimic a native application to > said system, keeping the "mess" to an absolute minimal, and looking > like a native built application (with only Mac having the App bundle). > > > Sorry if that's not the best way of explaining it or if that's not how > GNUstep was set up to "work". :p > > > Nonetheless, thanks again for the excellent discussion. > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Riccardo Mottola <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the reply David, >>> >>> I apologize for my lack of correct terminology - I did mean just >>> Foundation (as in, NSObject, NSDate, etc.) and .app bundles. >>> >>> >> >> What point do you have in an .app "bundle" if you do not have the GUI app >> itself and if you want GNUstep to be a ".so"? >>> >>> The idea that this is sparked off from is basically how one would take >>> ObjC, in a minimalist form, and port it over to another environment - >>> equally the same issue if you were to take it from iPhone to desktop >>> (say Windows/MinGW) or, probably another avenue to be explored next >>> year, iPhone to Android (if estimates of the Android market overtaking >>> iPhone stay true). >>> >> >> I think you underestimate the portability and compactness of "Foundation" >> which is what you are looking for. >> >> Foundation is compact, complete and reliable. It runs on a host of >> architectures and little resources. I have it working on a 68040 33MHz >> Motorola... And it runs very well on a MIPS netbook. >> >> The only thing is that its latest incarnation needs fairly modern thread >> stuff, I could use the older release on a 25Mhz Sparcstation with 32MB of >> ram easily! THat means the iPhone or iPad have far more resources! >>> >>> Having done years of C++, I've developed quite a hatred for all things >>> C++ in nature, and having gone from a strong C++ background to an ObjC >>> background, I have been absolutely amazed that it hasn't gotten more >>> wide reception. Either rate, I think one of the issues was that ObjC >>> was so intertwined to Apple, and GNUstep aims to break that - and this >>> is a very good thing imho. >>> >> >> I can understand your hate for C++. It is a shame it is so widespread. >>> >>> So I am trying to leverage the Foundation runtime best I can, but in a >>> minimalist form as possible - so aiming at a one file .so/.dll is the >>> goal really. I think that my original question may be a bit off since >>> what I am really interested in trying to make happen is so that going >>> through a GORM/GNUmake makefile like system (producing an .app >>> bundle), while interesting, is not necessarily the avenue wanting to >>> be took - mainly just pushing out a libobjc.so/.dll and >>> libnsfoundation.so/.dll would be the most ideal route. >>> >>> >> >> Play with "base", which contains foundation, it is most probably more than >> enough. You can also playing with its installation domains, like FHS. At the >> end, a Framework is really a library with a bunch of headers. >> >> Riccardo >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gnustep-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev -- Sent from my brain _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
