[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cocotron
From: |
Helge Hess |
Subject: |
Re: Cocotron |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:25:56 +0100 |
On Dec 24, 2006, at 03:39, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
I understand why libFoundation exists. My point, quite simply, is
that gnustep-base does so much more than libFoundation at this
point, there's little need for libFoundation at all.
For new users there is no point in using libFoundation, I completely
agree with that.
However, I don't need 98% of that "does so much more". If it doesn't
get into the way, well, OK then be it. The major thing which would be
a gain for us is Unicode support.
BTW: lF isn't really being "developed" anymore, its just kept in
shape. It just works and does all we need in our limited scope. Its
no waste of time for us because fixing gstep-base to match our
requirements is still quite a big effort, while keeping libFoundation
is a matter of a few days per year at most.
Would you mind documenting what fixes/changes you feel are
necessary to gstep-base to make it more palatable for your project?
I suppose the things to be done are basically (in order):
- get OGo compile and _run_ with gnustep-base (Note: w/o breaking
Cocoa compat)
- get OGo to run with no major performance drawbacks
- make everything working in an FHS context
- do packaging
Greets,
Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
Re: Cocotron, Philippe C.D. Robert, 2006/12/26
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/23
- Re: Cocotron, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2006/12/24
- Re: Cocotron,
Helge Hess <=
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/24
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/25
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/26
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/26
Re: Cocotron, Gregory John Casamento, 2006/12/26