Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe the point here is to move towards using "mainstream" versions
> of g-wrap rather than embedding our own private copy.
A noble goal.
> 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.
I agree that pulling non-GnuCash code out of the GnuCash source
tree is a good thing... If there is a readily (and easily) available
alternate source for that code.
> It would _surely_ be appropriate to have a tarball containing g-wrap,
> along, perhaps, with source/binary RPM and source/binary Debian packages.
Yes, that would be a good thing. OTOH, it would be nice to also
have a Swig SRPM (and other SRPMs that aren't delivered with, say,
RedHat 6.2) along side the GnuCash RPM. As I said, g-wrap is really
only needed as part of the build process, so I'm less worried about
it.. But it's challenging enough to build GnuCash as-is; making it
harder (by adding more _external_ dependencies without easy pointers
from the gnucash web site) will just discourage testers. Luckily
I don't get discouraged so easily ;)
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
