Re: Thoughts about GNUstep

Hi Joseph,

On 2026-05-03 19:33:41 +0200 Joseph Maloney <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think an alternative to dropping GCC could be for someone who needs=20=

> libobcj2 packaging to reach out, work with Debian or other distributio=
ns to=20
> package libobjc2, and get package flavors going for that.

I agree with that. Debian has a default principle: the user could choose=
 the runtime at installation stage.

>=20
> I'm personally making my own solutions so that I won't need to rely on=
=20
> distributions or packaging. This is one such solution that is a bit of=
 a=20
> science experiment but indicative of where I would like to go.
>=20
> https://marketstep.github.io

This is awesome.
Could you give us more description on how this packaging is working?

>=20
> I can quickly produce thousands of these with a re-usable workflow wit=
h no=20
> code changes. This of course applies to only non GNUstep apps, but mak=
es them=20
> work and feel like native apps should. I have similar thoughts, ideas =
for=20
> GNUstep apps. I am trying to port a few macOS apps to GNUstep showcase=
 that=20
> idea as well here. It's an example how I am strategically working towa=
rds=20
> different solutions vs trying to pursue changes in GNUstep itself that=
 would=20
> take away options from people who want to use it differently. I lean t=
owards=20
> more options is always better myself vs taking away options. But I can=
=20
> understand that everyone has different needs and that is not so easy f=
or=20
> some.
>=20
> Joseph Maloney
>=20
> Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/mail/home) secure email.
>=20
> On Sunday, May 3rd, 2026 at 11:27 AM, Sebastian Reitenbach=20
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
>> Hi,
>=20
>> On Sun, May 3, 2026 at 5:20=E2=80=AFPM Gregory Casamento=20
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
>>> On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 10:49=E2=80=AFPM Michael Rans <mcarans@yahoo.=
co.uk> wrote:
>=20
>>>> At this point, the developer may lose interest and look for somethi=
ng=20
>>>> else. So in my view, the clang version of the libraries should be t=
he=20
>>>> default on all distros with the gcc version as an option.
>=20
>>> Agreed, and this IS our fault. Some people might argue that this sho=
uldn't=20
>>> matter, but I, personally, think that it is very important for us to=
=20
>>> either get ObjC2.0 into GCC *OR* drop support for it entirely. Dropp=
ing=20
>>> support is difficult, politically, since we ARE a GNU project.
>=20
>> Perhaps it shouldn't be framed as 'dropping support,' but rather as=20=

>> 'prioritizing progress.'
>> Sometimes, shedding legacy constraints is the only way to move a proj=
ect=20
>> forward. By making Objective-C 2.0 and the Clang/LLVM toolchain the p=
rimary=20
>> focus, it will signal that GNUstep is a modern, evolving platform. If=
 GCC=20
>> support becomes temporarily non-functional as a result, it shifts the=
=20
>> impetus to the GCC community to modernize their Objective-C implement=
ation.=20
>> As long as GNUstep continues to bend over backwards to support an out=
dated=20
>> runtime, it remove any incentive for GCC to improve.
>=20
>> just my 2 cents on that topic.
>> cheers,
>> Sebastian
>> --
>=20
>> https://buzzdeee.reitenba.ch
>=20


Cheers,
Patrick

--=20
Patrick Cardona - Pi500 - GNU/Linux aarch64 (Debian 13.4)=20
Xorg (1:7.7+24) - libcairo2 (1.18.4-1+rpt1 arm64) - Window Maker (0.96.0=
-4)
GWorkspace (1.1.0 - 02 2025) - Theme: AGNOSTEP - Classic - MUA: GNUMail =
(1.4.0 - rev.947)