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

[David Ayers]

Markus Hitter wrote:

> Am Dienstag, 01.07.03 um 16:43 Uhr schrieb Adam Fedor:
>
> > If you use the GNUstep-make system to installl Additions, it gets 
> > installed as a library.
>
> ... which isn't the preferred way of using libraries in OS X 
> development, at least from the Apple point of view. 

Yet it seems the preferred way from a GNUstep point of view :-) .

> > There is also a PB project (see the macosx subdirectory) that I think 
> > installs it as a framework.
>
> There is no need to install a Framework anywhere. Usually, they go 
> into the app's bundle. This enables Drag & Drop install of 
> applications. Still, this is how Apple recommends it, how OS X users 
> expect it and how most Cocoa developers do it.
>
> (This is GNUstep, after all) 

Exactly, it's not Cocoa :-)

> When answering David Ayers privately, I found this possible solution 
> to make all citizens happy:
>
> Headers of parts of GNUstep which can be used as a separate, 
> standalone framework are included like:
>
> #include <GNUstepAdditions/GSMime.h>
>
> If you install the part the GNUstep way, the header should go into 
> $GNUSTEP/include/GNUstepAdditions/GSMime.h> and will be found like before.

Sorry, I fail to understand this... but I *think* you mean this:

First we need to differentiate between -base and -gui. I.e. you're 
suggesting to replace gnustep/base with GNUstepBaseAdditions and 
gnustep/gui with GNUstepGuiAdditions, everywhere.

> If you use the part as a framework, you name it 
> "GNUstepAdditions.framework", add "-framework GNUstepAdditions" to the 
> compiler flags and the header will be found as well. 

Would that really work for non OS X systems?  Or are you only talking OS 
X here?

Well, I'm not sure I really like the idea yet, but I'll sit on it a bit 
and give others the chance to chime in.

Cheers,
David