Re: removal of update.sh
- From: "R.I.P. Deaddog" <maddog linuxhall org>
- To: Sven Neumann <sven gimp org>
- Cc: Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>,Gnome I18N List <gnome-i18n gnome org>
- Subject: Re: removal of update.sh
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:21:48 +0800 (HKT)
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
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]