Re: [RFC/make] Extend Framework support II

[Nicola Pero]

> > Ok - so you want to install all your stuff, including frameworks, into
> > GNUstep directories outside of the Apple ones.
> > 
> > I don't think it's a good way of doing things, but I also agree it's a
> > reasonable request for a power user to be able to use gnustep-make in such
> > a way if you so wish, and the current code doesn't allow you to do it.
> > 
> > So, send me the patches to add -F and YDLIB_XXX on Apple and I'll commit
> > them. :-)
> > 
> > I'd still like to preserve the defaults for it to be to use it only as a
> > build system, so maybe the -F and DYLIB_XXX code should be turned on only
> > by a configure flag.  I'm not sure yet, but you'll have the possibility of
> > installing frameworks in gnustep-make's installation directory if you feel
> > that's what you need, and I'm sure a ./configure flag won't scare you that
> > much.
> > 
> > Thanks.  Useful discussion it seems :-)
> 
> Thank you :-) !
> 
> Now for consistencies sake, if -make doesn't add -F/DYLD_FRAMEWORK_NAME, 
> should I also remove -I/-L/DYLD_LIBRARY_NAME wrt to the "GNUstep 
> Installation" when this configure flag isn't set?  I would think so. 
> There seems no sense in searching for headers and libraries and then 
> ignoring frameworks.

Good point.

So by default no -I/-L/-F/DYLD_* flag would be set, which would be for
using gnustep-make only as a building tool, while if you pass a specific
./configure flag you configure gnustep-make as a building tool +
installation area, in a similar way as a full GNUstep installation would
work, in which case the full set of -I/-L/-F/DYLD_* flags would be
set/used.

That might make quite a lot of sense.  Hmmm.


> PS: The patches will probably not be ready until Monday as this weekend 
> is pretty packed.

Not a problem