Re: [Barry-devel] [PATCH] Fix and Improvement

[Chris F. <cd...@fo...>]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:28:39PM +0200, Nicolas wrote:
> Makefile.in.in isn't autogenerated... it's only a template provided from
> the command gettextize.

But it is not human code... i.e. you're not writing it, and it comes
from gettext.  So it ends up making auditing new patches more difficult
for anyone who is following along at home.  It's already hard enough to
audit all the human patches... I don't like autoconf generated code
in the tree since it's usually a huge opaque blob of shell. :-)


> For the moment, without path you can't build barry if you haven't the
> same gettext release I have ! So with the patch, it's better.

I'm truly hoping that a released tarball with all the autogenerated stuff
included doesn't depend on specific gettext versions...

But all the latest popular distros still seem to be using gettext 0.17,
so it's probably best to stick with that version for now.


> I'm not a gettext expert :(

Neither am I! :-)


> In others projects, these files are into CVS.
> 
> And it's confirmed in the gettext documentation :
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/gettext.html#Distributed-CVS

That page says:

	"It is highly recommended that all developers on a project use
	the same version of GNU gettext in the package."

That's just simply impractical.  Just like we can't expect everyone to use
the same versions of autoconf and automake, although that has calmed
down lately and almost every developer has 2.61 and 1.9, I think.


> http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/gettext.html#Files-under-CVS

I've gone with option #3.

I'm really hoping that gettext 0.18's autopoint program is smart enough
to update automatically from version 0.17.  Could you give the latest
git a try and let me know?  None of my test distros have 0.18.

Thanks,
- Chris