[kaffe] perhaps we should include kaffe/po/*.gmo in cvs

[Guilhem Lavaux]

Hi Noa,

Noa Resare wrote:
> In light of the recent build failure reports on the list relating to
> building the po/*.gmo files I would like to suggest that we add those
> files to the cvs repository.
> 
> .gmo files are binary files that are constructed from the
> correpsonding .po files by the msgfmt tool (distributed with gettext).
> The .gmo files are arch independent and in projects using autotools they
> get included in source distribution tarballs. 
> 
> My argument for including the .gmo files in cvs:
> 
> - we include a lot of other redundant files (such as configure) to
> eliminate the need for the full autoconf/automake toolchain when
> compiling from cvs.
> 
> - by including it we would say that "getting kaffe from cvs will work as
> a proper release from a build standpoint. You don't need a developers
> toolchain unless you change anything". That would probably help testers
> on various exotic platforms working on more essential problems.
> 
> - it doesn't occupy a lot of disk space
> 
> Arguments against:
> 
> - binary files in cvs kind of sucks
> 
> - it would put an additional burden on people checking in changes to .po
> files.
> 
> - (almost) everyone has msgfmt anyway.
> 
> - the rationale for including autotools generated files is that those
> files are much more version sensitive than msgfmt. 
> 
> In this case I think that the benefits of easy compilation outweighs the
> burden of maintenance and additional disk space requirements. What do
> you people think?
> 

I have not included .gmo files specially because I don't like binary 
files in CVS and they are anyway generated for any snapshots. But I 
agree it is harder to have a fully functional CVS for "exotic" 
platforms. My main objection to the autotools comparison is that it is 
far easier to get a gettext package (any package should work with 
current .po) than for the complete autotools suite (where you need to 
get the exact version).

Cheers,

Guilhem Lavaux.