Hello everybody
I know there have been tons of discussions and flames on this topic, but this
time I have a solution for it. For details, please read
http://openspace.adlerka.sk/NativeFrameworks and tell me your opinion: is it
worth bothering about further, or just blow the whole thing in the wind
> Hello everybody
>
> I know there have been tons of discussions and flames on this topic, but this
> time I have a solution for it. For details, please read
> http://openspace.adlerka.sk/NativeFrameworks and tell me your opinion: is it
> worth bothering about further, or just blow the whole thin
--- Sa¹o Kiselkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
> I know there have been tons of discussions and
> flames on this topic, but this
> time I have a solution for it. For details, please
> read
> http://openspace.adlerka.sk/NativeFrameworks and
> tell me your opinion: is it
> worth
I wanted to avoid using some platform-specific hacking in order to extended
support to the platform hated by any serious developer: Windows.
Quoting Nicola Pero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> * ObjC software is not always invoked from the command line ... eg if
> your ObjC software is a package (linke
From: "Saso Kiselkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wanted to avoid using some platform-specific hacking in order to extended
support to the platform hated by any serious developer: Windows.
This is my fundamental problem with OSS in general: The very idea that all
"serious" developers hate Windows i
Am Donnerstag, 08.09.05 um 16:53 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Bettis:
The huge benefit of writing software for windows is that there are
millions of potential customers for you to sell/give your software to.
The huge benefit of running windows is that there are millions of
"friends" who offer you to
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:51:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Nicola Pero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[iso-8859-2] Sa¹o Kiselkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNUstep Native Framework Support
> I wanted to avoid using some platform-spe
heres a quick hack at the LD_AUDIT thing i mentioned
earlier with glibc-2.4... (and the current fedora libc
i believe) or with a few changes s/-Wl,-soname/-Wl,-h/
and some other stuff solaris..
> Yes ... exactly what I wanted to say ... we are
> trying to get rid of
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH in general! :
