Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.

[Jeff Teunissen]

Nicola Pero wrote:

> Thanks - I immediately applied what I could do without any harm - I
> renamed 'Apps' to 'Applications'.

I don't know about that...I rather like 'Apps'. 'Applications' has a
pretentious "feel" to it.

> For the rest, your layout proposal is quite clean, with only
> Applications, Tools and Library (containing everything else) in the
> top-level dir - but the problem is that it would involve moving
> everything from Libraries/Resources, and Headers and Makefiles, into
> Library/ (this is actually the main change) and since I know that
> particular issue causes terrible flamewars (it caused many in the past),
> and that there is absolutely no agreement on Library vs Libraries etc, I
> just prefer to ignore the matter and leave everything as it is :-)

I think the idea is that the GNUstep Libraries/ directory ought to be split
out into Foundation, AppKit, etc. frameworks. From the point of view of coding
a GNUstep app, they already are frameworks (ref. NSBundle), while a "library"
needn't be within the GNUstep hierarchy at all.

-- 
| Jeff Teunissen  -=-  Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing  -=-  deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A   7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B  161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project        http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux              http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/