On 22 Feb 2006, at 19:58, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
On Feb 22, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
I boggled when I read that ... then realised that my initial
incomprehension was due to 20+ years experience programming on
unix style systems ... it simply didn't occur to me
On Feb 22, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Jeremy Cowgar said that he had problems because the base library
creates/uses a user defaults database, and he didn't want it doing
that... so I spent a little while making that behavior optional ...
and you can pick up the new
Richard/Andy,This gives me an idea. Instead of a split, why not simply make those DO classes non-functional given a parameter. This allow developers to use base as a library without the need for daemons, and it would avoid a messy and, possibly, unnatural, split in the base lib.Later, GJCGregory
I saw this posted on another FOSS mailing list today, and read over it.
I think we could benefit from some of the things they suggest, as GNU
Classpath already has.
Full text follows:
Dear OPL developers,
I wrote some guidelines that should help FOSS projects getting more
lively and
On 22 Feb 2006, at 10:20, Philippe C.D. Robert wrote:
On 19.02.2006, at 17:12, Helge Hess wrote:
On 19. Feb 2006, at 06:27 Uhr, Andrew Ruder wrote:
Objective-C is an incredible programming language, but right now the
most crippling factor for its widespread use is the lack of a
standard
I am considering a tool which can be used to read the .xcode files and generate GNUmakefiles OR simply execute gcc and create a build directory as xcodebuild under OS X does.Later, GJCGregory John Casamento-- Principal Consultant, Open Logic Corp. (A MD Corp.)## Maintainer of Gorm(IB) GUI(AppKit)
On 23 Feb 2006, at 01:04, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Richard/Andy,
This gives me an idea. Instead of a split, why not simply make
those DO classes non-functional given a parameter. This allow
developers to use base as a library without the need for daemons,
and it would avoid a
On 22 Feb 2006, at 20:32, Matt Rice wrote:
why not just have it instead of having to setup a
config entry just not have it create the defaults
database until something is written to defaults then
if his program doesn't use it, it won't ever be
created?
I did that... in svn.
On 22. Feb 2006, at 19:29 Uhr, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
I boggled when I read that ... then realised that my initial
incomprehension was due to 20+ years experience programming on unix
style systems ... it simply didn't occur to me that copying the
library from one directory to
On 22 Feb 2006, at 20:32, Matt Rice wrote:
--- Richard Frith-Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2006, at 22:30, Riccardo wrote:
Hey all,
On Sunday, February 19, 2006, at 06:27 AM, Andrew
Ruder wrote:
Jeremy Cowgar said that he had problems because the
base library
On 2/22/06, Richard Frith-Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I'm just trying to find out exactly what your problems are so we can
do something to avoid them ... and it's sounding to me like we just
need an alternative installation script to install stuff in the FHS
locations ...
Hi,
I have installed GNUstep under windows using the latest installer.
$ cd /c/GNUstep/Development/Source/base
$ ./configure --disable-xml
$ make
...
Linking library libgnustep-base ...
Info: resolving ___objc_class_name_Protocol by linking to
__impobjc_class_name_Protocol (auto-import)
Hi Chris,
Would this also mean the we need a /System/Library/Inspectors
/System/Library/Finder /System/Library/TextConverters
/System/Library/GSPrinting just no name a view others that are falling
in the same category.
Or am I somehow missing the point here?
Thanks,
Dennis
Chris Vetter
Hi Richard,
On 23.02.2006, at 08:49, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Whats problematic is that it isn't possible to go w/o it and run
GNUstep binaries/libraries like a regular Unix tool. Thats one of
the reasons why its currently not possible for OGo to switch to
gstep-base.
Exactly, this
14 matches
Mail list logo
