[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gnustep-make on OSX
From: |
Nicola Pero |
Subject: |
Re: gnustep-make on OSX |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:30:49 +0000 (GMT) |
> > I only needed to fix a few flags. I think it was supposed to, but in
> > practice it wasn't setting the -framework flags properly when building
> > with nx-nx-nx library-combo. I've also dropped old NeXTstep stuff.
>
> Hm, personally I would have kept the "old" NeXTstep stuff and created a
> new combo "apple-apple-apple" (or a-a-a ?) which does the Apple thing
> (I think I suggested that before).
Yes ... I'd probably like to change the library combo for OSX from
nx-nx-nx to apple-apple-apple.
In theory I should have kept support for the three building options, gnu,
nx, apple, as you say ... but it started to get complex, so I dropped the
oldest and (frankly) obsolete one.
It's just to simplify maintaintenance that I did it. I can rewrite and
recast code more freely this way. I had no way to check the old code, and
looking at it, I also think it was already broken.
> > What I want to do is have any reasonably standard GNUmakefile of a GNUstep
> > project compile natively on OSX to build native OSX application /
> > frameworks / bundles from the same source code.
>
> BTW: A major problem is that Finder doesn't support reading GNUstep.sh,
> which implies that you either need to start all GNUstep related
> programs (including PBX) from the shell or patch
> .MacOSX/environment.plist to include/define all required environment
> variables statically.
Hmmm.
> > There is a particular trick which I have in mind to get there ...
> > which is
> > that library.make will actually build frameworks on OSX ... but I need
> > to
> > experiment with this. :-)
>
> Hm, good idea ! This would solve me a lot of problems and does more or
> less exactly what I need.
Ok - I'll go on with it.
> Nicola, could you add support for umbrella-frameworks on OSX, including
> "contained frameworks" (copying the libraries into a bigger single
> framework package) ? The reason is, I have something like 30 libraries
> which I build as frameworks on OSX, but for easier distribution collect
> them in 3 or 4 umbrella's.
Thanks for the suggestion. Not immediately, but maybe later.