gnustep-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Frameworks on windows.


From: David Ayers
Subject: Re: Frameworks on windows.
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:04:07 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511

Alex Perez wrote:

> David Ayers wrote:
> 
>> Frameworks (or true frameworks as some people call them) currently only
>> work on Darwin (and for Matt Rice ;-) ).  Matt has a set of patches that
>> actually add framework support to glibc, binutils and gcc for gnu-linux
>> (and possibly gnu-hurd).  He has tried integrating them upstream but has
>> not received any response from glibc maintainers, and anyone following
>> the general argumentation on new features of the main maintainers,
>> probably has to admit that framework support "probably never will" be
>> integrated into glibc.
> 
> 
> Well, I think we just need to make it heard that we want such
> functionality. Currently, the developers dont think anyone wants it, and
> probably think Matt is just some crazy guy, which he is indeed not.

I don't mean to discourage anyone from trying, but I get the feeling
that even if a community as large as the entire Darwin/Mac OS X
community including Apple Inc. would violently support us, we would
still be considered the minority.  As reference, have a look at:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/7326.html


>>
>> OTOH, similar to the workarounds we have in -make for frameworks on
>> non-Darwin systems, we could probably make it work in conjunction with
>> Free versions of junction command line tools.  But understand this is
>> not the relocatable framework which compiler/linker/loader handle via
>> -F/-framework.  And windows users must be educated to not attempt to
>> remove symlinked/junctioned directories via standard tools like rm, del
>> or the Explorer.
> 
> 
> Yes. Warning: The term Junction is not the correct term, and
> windows'/microsoft terminology for symlinks and hard links are known to
> be internally inconsistant within their own documentation.

Interesting, what is the correct term?  I've seen the term junction:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q205524

and multiple other places:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=819&q=junction+windows+NTFS&btnG=Search


Cheers,
David





reply via email to

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