Re: CVS & Gettext

[Paul Eggert]

> From: "Paul D. Smith" <address@hidden>
> Date: 23 Apr 2002 10:13:38 -0400
> 
>   bh> For these reasons, I will recommend c) in the gettext doc, and not
>   bh> take any steps which are tantamount to encouraging a) or b).
> 
> I hope you will reconsider allowing development teams to make their own
> choices about whether approach (b) is right for them or not.

I use (b) as well, and like Paul Smith I tend to run mostly in a
1-person development environment.

One of the downsides of (b) is that it's easy to become out of date
with respect to gettext versions.  I work around this by manually
diffing gettext versions as they come out, and propagating any changes
into my packages.  This is a pain, but it's less painful than
alternative (c) (namely running gettext and fixing up after its
mistakes).

In practice I think (c) is OK if done only occasionally, but in my
case it's not reasonable to do (c) after every gettext release, due to
the hassles involved.  So I'm afraid that in practice (c) encourages
maintainers to avoid upgrading their software distributions to use the
latest gettext release.