Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3C192A8F.168CF40F@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:24:15 -0500
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Restructuring gettext
References:	<3C18EBA9 DOT 9030102 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011213215926 DOT GA20163 AT redhat DOT com>
X-Virus-Scanned:	by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:55:53PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >However, this means that the new gettext dll is not backward compatible
> >with packages linked against the old dll
> 
> The term "glutton for punishment" springs to mind.

Well, solve one problem, create another...but it's easier to type
"install libintl0, you blockhead" than it is to explain about gettext
wackiness, --with-included-gettext, etc etc.

> >How should we handle this sort of thing in the future, when setup.hints
> >of OTHER packages need to be updated, but the one forcing the change
> >(me, in this case) is not the maintainer of those other packages?
> >
> >Oh yeah: link
> >  http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/testing/gettext/
> 
> I think we should consider it the responsibility of the package maintainer
> to maintain all occurrences of the name of his package.  So, it would
> be within your right to change mutt to accomodate your changes -- as
> long as you let the mutt maintainer know about this.

Okay, I can do that currently -- but once the meta-data is folded into
the -src archive (bin archive?) it gets a bit trickier.

Any other comments about the restructuring itself?  Unfortunately, I see
this sort of thing being necessary for a lot of packages that provide
DLL's: and not just because "we" change the way we build 'em.  Sometimes
the upstream folks change the API -- like readline.  Hopefully these
disruptions can be "spaced out" so they don't all hit at once...

Anyway, I'm treating the "lib*" packages as "shared lib only" and the
"gettext" package as "devel (statlib, implib, headers) + utils & doc" 
rather than having a "gettext-devel" and "gettext" which would be the
Red Hat / Mandrake way of doing it.  Again, my argument: lib* packages
are necessary(*) so go ahead with that split, but it is unnecessary to
split anything else so don't be needlessly disruptive.

(*) Necessary, that is, if we want to fix the --with-included-gettext
problem.

--Chuck

- Raw text -