Re: GCC Framework support in Linux (fwd)

[Adam Fedor]

On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 11:42 AM, David Ayers wrote:

> It's just too ironic that this is happening while Nicola is away.  I'm 
> not sure if a could lead a meaningful discussion on the gcc list about 
> this.  But unless someone else jumps in, I'll take a shot at it.  I 
> think argumenting for target specific handling might be accepted, but 
> I don't know how we should approach the concept of library-combos as 
> this will most likely be viewed as an arbitrary selection 
> frameworks/libraries to add extra handling for which is only 
> meaningful in the context of OpenStep and ObjC runtime's.
We should probably chime in, just so they know we are interested.

> I'm not really sure whether the Headers really need to be installed in 
> library combo specific directories for any other reason than the -I 
> flags, that couldn't be resolved with #ifdef's but as that would only 
> affect -make and those header internals, so I'm not too worried if we 
> decide to change it again, even though we would "recomplicate" -make.  
> It would be nice though if the issue could be resolved once and for 
> all before we release again.  (Deja vu :-))

I though the most useful part of putting headers into a target-specific 
dir was versioning - e.g. I have gnustep-base installed on two targets. 
Then I upgrade one target (perhaps a development version), and I don't 
want those headers screwing up the other (perhaps stable) target.  With 
frameworks, that's not really as important since they have versioning 
built in. I think it does complicate things a bit much however, that's 
why I think we should reconsider it.