Re: removal of update.sh

["R.I.P. Deaddog" <maddog linuxhall org>]

On 15 Jan 2002, Sven Neumann wrote:

> > I'm afraid I don't see the point in including old, buggy versions of
> > update.sh/update.pl scripts.
> 
> the point is that not everyone has intltool installed and shouldn't
> have to. I get enough complaints from people that have problems to
> setup their build environment. Including the scripts makes it easier
> for those people. I haven't received complaints about buggy update.sh
> scripts yet. We don't have to fight over this however, it's not worth
> the wasted bandwidth.

See some flaw in both of the arguments:

1. The update.sh in gimp was working well for a long time.

2. I suppose update.sh is not run by normal users, but maintainers
   instead? Isn't it executed to update all the po files just before
   releasing software? Did I get it wrong?

I tend to fall a bit more on Sven's side for this issue. Undoubtedly,
intltool is *much* more advanced, and gimp can surely benefit from it.
However, gimp is a bit more complex regarding translations (especially
about gimp-perl and script-fu stuff). If I were a software maintainer,
I'd rather keep an antique but working script before I can guarantee
new tool is working flawlessly on the software, before removing it
hastily.

Abel