On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:29:55 +, Richard Frith-Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Maybe all we really need here is FHS support in the make package so
> you can opt to install in FHS locations? And lots of publicity so
> people know about it.
FWIW, Debian is currently handling the FHS issue
Chris Vetter wrote:
On 2006-02-26 03:12:10 +0100 Alex Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hear, Hear! This should be the default location. The other gnustep
junk can still live in /usr/gnustep or wherever else, but the libs
should be in *STANDARD FHS LOCATIONS*.
Uhm ... 'scuse me, this is all
On 26. Feb 2006, at 15:49 Uhr, Chris Vetter wrote:
Or rather the other way around, Linux is the only system 'using'
the FHS. So calling the FHS a standard is a bit over the top.
I think it would be more helpful to explain how your favorite system
differs to FHS than bashing FHS so that the r
On 2006-02-26 03:12:10 +0100 Alex Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hear, Hear! This should be the default location. The other gnustep
junk can
still live in /usr/gnustep or wherever else, but the libs should be
in
*STANDARD FHS LOCATIONS*.
Uhm ... 'scuse me, this is all good and stuff, BUT..
Riccardo wrote:
On Sunday, February 26, 2006, at 03:49 PM, Chris Vetter wrote:
Uhm ... 'scuse me, this is all good and stuff, BUT...
... NOT everyone is using GNUstep on a system that adheres to a
_LINUX_ specific "standard". Bash me, if you want, I just checked the
FHS' web site, and as fa
On Sunday, February 26, 2006, at 03:49 PM, Chris Vetter wrote:
Uhm ... 'scuse me, this is all good and stuff, BUT...
... NOT everyone is using GNUstep on a system that adheres to a _LINUX_
specific "standard". Bash me, if you want, I just checked the FHS' web
site, and as far as I can see, t
On 25 Feb 2006, at 04:37, Sheldon Gill wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 23 Feb 2006, at 01:04, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Actually ... I'm getting the impression that the best thing to do
might just be not warn about missing external resources if the
library is installed in a
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006, at 04:37, Sheldon Gill wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 23 Feb 2006, at 01:04, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
[snip]
So, only four categories rather than six ... even so, I think
NSWarnLog() is hardly ever used ... I think it's really,
Helge Hess wrote:
Honestly I can't see a reason why libgstep-base and associated resources
should be installed into any other place but /usr/local or /usr as per
FHS. This should be the default location. Even if GNUstep.sh is being
used (which would be searched first when its sourced).
Hear,
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 23 Feb 2006, at 01:04, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Actually ... I'm getting the impression that the best thing to do might
just be not warn about missing external resources if the library is
installed in a path other than System/Library/Libraries
Might I
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
On 24. Feb 2006, at 08:42 Uhr, Philippe C.D. Robert wrote:
That's good to hear. So you are saying that one can copy solely the
base .so to e.g. /usr/local/lib/ and it just works (w/o DO of course)?
Well, Richard said that multiple times now - so yes! :-)
I think DO should also work as explain
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 .
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
creates
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 another
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 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 me
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
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, GJCGregor
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 ver
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 that
--- 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
> creates/uses a user defau
On 22 Feb 2006, at 17:42, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
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 behav
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
library."
Where did you get that conclusion I never he
On 19 Feb 2006, at 22:30, Riccardo wrote:
Hey all,
On Sunday, February 19, 2006, at 06:27 AM, 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
library." Right now there are two
On 2006-02-19 17:12:20 +0100 Helge Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
(though I have the impression that gstep-base still contains too
much GS* stuff).
[...]
Amen to that.
--
Chris
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lis
On 2006-02-19 17:20:47 +0100 Jeremy Cowgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it's a great idea!
Excuse me, but WHY do you quote his entire mail just for SIX fucking
words as a reply?
--
Chris
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
htt
Hey all,
On Sunday, February 19, 2006, at 06:27 AM, 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
library." Right now there are two prevalent options to utilizing Obj-C
in your p
On 2/19/06, Richard Frith-Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2006, at 05:27, Andrew Ruder wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Possible setups might be ...
>
> Linux FHS installation (really just needs implementing in gnustep-make)
I guess his point is that someone may just want to compile GNUstep-
On 19. Feb 2006, at 10:21 Uhr, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
I don't think libFoundation is more flexible than GNUstep-base ...
rather
it's different, and I don't really see why gnustep needs to try to
'beat' it.
I agree.
For me lF is a bit more flexibile since I can change anything I want
On 19 Feb 2006, at 16:24, Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
On Feb 19, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 19 Feb 2006, at 05:27, Andrew Ruder wrote:
Hello all,
Objective-C is an incredible programming language, but right now the
most crippling factor for its widespread use is the lac
I think it's a great idea!
On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:27 AM, Andrew Ruder wrote:
Hello all,
Objective-C is an incredible programming language, but right now the
most crippling factor for its widespread use is the lack of a
"standard
library." Right now there are two prevalent options to utilizi
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
library."
Where did you get that conclusion I never heard about that one
before! :-)
GNUstep, h
On 19. Feb 2006, at 08:35 Uhr, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
For me, distributed objects are one of the 'killer' features of the
base
library and the desire to use DO is perhaps the main reason I started
GNUstep development!
There do seem to be some people who just hate daemons, but even
if yo
On Feb 19, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 19 Feb 2006, at 05:27, Andrew Ruder wrote:
Hello all,
Objective-C is an incredible programming language, but right now the
most crippling factor for its widespread use is the lack of a
"standard
library." Right now there are
On 19 Feb 2006, at 05:27, Andrew Ruder wrote:
Hello all,
Objective-C is an incredible programming language, but right now the
most crippling factor for its widespread use is the lack of a
"standard
library." Right now there are two prevalent options to utilizing
Obj-C
in your program: GN
On 19 Feb 2006, at 05:27, Andrew Ruder wrote:
Hello all,
Objective-C is an incredible programming language, but right now the
most crippling factor for its widespread use is the lack of a
"standard
library." Right now there are two prevalent options to utilizing
Obj-C
in your program: GN
Hello all,
Objective-C is an incredible programming language, but right now the
most crippling factor for its widespread use is the lack of a "standard
library." Right now there are two prevalent options to utilizing Obj-C
in your program: GNUstep and OS X. Obviously the biggest problem with
OS
38 matches
Mail list logo
