Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:16:31 -0500 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: FreeBSD GNOME Users <gnome@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New gettext update Message-ID: <20040123201631.GM3365@toxic.magnesium.net> In-Reply-To: <opr18vtvvz8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net> References: <1074887353.768.86.camel@gyros> <20040123201250.GK3365@toxic.magnesium.net> <opr18vtvvz8ckrg5@smtp.central.cox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> (01.23.2004 @ 1514 PST): Jeremy Messenger said, in 1.3K: << > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:12:50 -0500, Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> > wrote: > > >>>(01.23.2004 @ 1449 PST): Joe Marcus Clarke said, in 1.1K: << > >>I'm sure that by now, people have seen that the main gettext port was > >>updated to 0.13, and 0.12.1 was moved to gettext-old. This is going to > >>cause some headaches for GNOME users (well, anyone really). What you > >>need to do is first remove gettext, then install gettext-old. At that > >>point, you should be okay. > >> > >>What would be nice is for someone with a fast machine to modify the > >>necessary GNOME bits to use the new gettext, and do a full GNOME build. > >>If that works, we can migrate GNOME over to the new gettext (and then > >>we'll have to remove gettext-old, and install gettext...). Yes, this > >>sucks. > >>>end of "HEADS UP: New gettext update" from Joe Marcus Clarke << > > > >Should it be backed out until it can be better thought out and tested? > > Perhaps, do the opposite by gettext-new for 0.13 and keep gettext (0.12.x) > until the gettext-new is well tested? >> end of "Re: HEADS UP: New gettext update" from Jeremy Messenger << I like this idea a lot. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adam@vectors.cx // adamw@FreeBSD.org // adamw@magnesium.net http://www.vectors.cx
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040123201631.GM3365>