On 02 May 2000 12:50:25 EDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quick question: why are we making a dependency on an external
> package that very likely wont be pre-installed on machines?
> What's wrong with including g-wrap within the GnuCash CVS tree?
> Perhaps checking to see if the g-wrap executable is in the path
> and if not build it from the source tree?
>
> IMHO, the fewer external dependencies, the better we are. It was
> annoying enough to have to track down Swig (not to mention the set of
> -devel packages that I neglected to install) in order to get the
> sources out of CVS to build properly....
>
> Luckily, IIRC, g-wrap isn't required by the gnucash binary.
I believe the point here is to move towards using "mainstream" versions
of g-wrap rather than embedding our own private copy.
GnuCash doesn't want to be the maintainers of g-wrap; by pulling it
out of the main codebase, that allows _that_ "dependancy" to be broken,
which seems to me to be a good thing.
It would _surely_ be appropriate to have a tarball containing g-wrap,
along, perhaps, with source/binary RPM and source/binary Debian packages.
--
Q: Can SETQ only be used with numerics?
A: No, SETQ may also be used by Symbolics, and use it they do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
