[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: reorganizing bundles ... killing the symlink

From: David Ayers
Subject: Re: reorganizing bundles ... killing the symlink
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:35:40 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Nicola Pero wrote:

I'd like to remove the symlink which we build inside a bundle directory.



An obvious suggestion would be to change the directory structure of
GNUstep bundles to be more similar to OSX -


No symlinks would be required.  That would imply dropping the NeXTstep
compatibility - but is anyone still using a NeXTstep and wishing to use
gnustep-make on NeXTstep to build pure <non-gnustep> NeXTstep bundles ? I somewhat doubt it :-)

I generally agree that trying to stay compatible with OS X is a major plus for GNUstep and that it would be nice if OS X developers can find a familiar sturucture. More important, it might be easier to support future changes in OS X where we can easily do so. (I know others think differently about OS X compatibily, but GNUstep doesn't loose much here.) So if no one is building NeXTstep bundles with GNUstep make, I'd vote for this.

Problem is, then applications and bundles would have a different structure
... <applications still being like the original gnustep bundles>
... unless we want to change applications as well to be as in

Well, I think it should all be done at once.


Another solution would be to build bundles in the GNUstep way when running
on gnustep, and build bundles in the OSX way when running on OSX.
Hmm. I wouldn't protest, but it seems more work to maintain. (on the other hand, pure GNUstep developers might remain unaffected by future OS X changes, but somehow I believe this is only theoretical. Some datail will probably involve special case handling again, but this is just a hunch.)

{Maybe then, we could actually do on GNUstep as in -

xxx.bundle/Resources/<any resource in here>

because, after all, it makes some sense to have Info-gnustep.plist outside
the Resources/ dir, and also to have it top-level, since it contains
information about what you can find inside the bundle, and where.

Then GNUstep and OSX just different on the 'top-dir' in which they place
Info[-gnustep].plist and Resources/, so I could have a variable keeping
that dir, and set it differently in the two cases.}

Again I wouldn't protest, but I don't find it worth while. It introduces a difference and (unlike Apple) I'd lean towards "Think Better", not "Different" and stay compatible where it doesn't mean loss of functionality. Somehow I believe trying to be diffrent in such details, just makes it harder for developers to switch. (Hey but since this really isn't that "hard" to recognize, maybe GNUsteppers might think this makes it reasier to handle the Resources. So like a said before, fine with me.)

Comments ?  Preferences ?  Suggestions ?

I though I might just post my thought to get it rolling... :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]