Re: libgnustep-base split proposal

[Philippe C.D. Robert]

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 is IMO a severe drawback of GNUstep, even worse, a  
> > major show stopper (at least for me)!
>
> While there are obvious cases (attempting to use a name server  
> daemon if there isn't one installed for instance) where there are  
> problems ... and I'm all in favour of improving anything like that  
> where possible, I have to say again that it is simply NOT TRUE that  
> you can't just compile/link with the base library and run a tool.
>
> This problem *USED* to exist because the NSCharacterSet data used  
> to be held in external files and without NSCharacterSet working  
> properly, string handling doesn't work properly ... so everything  
> is messed up.   But this was changed about a year ago, it's not  
> been true for a long time now.
>
> I'm sure there are rough edges where behavior of some classes is  
> not ideal and needs fixing, but there are no 'show stoppers' that I  
> have heard of.
> Most likely what we have are usability issues ... where we have  
> rough edges because either nobody has reported problems or because  
> a few (FHS support in 'make install' for instance) just haven't  
> been dealt with yet.  And those rough edges might seem like show  
> stoppers to people who don't know how to deal with them ... so we  
> need to know about them and smooth them off.

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)?

-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip