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
