Re: Major CVS confusion in libinit_balsa

[Jules Bean <jmlb2 hermes cam ac uk>]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 06:13:15PM -0500, Peter Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:57:45 Bruno Pires Marinho wrote:
> > 
> > Yes it's because they are on .cvsignore. If the files are going to be back
> > on cvs Peter needs to remove the files he added from .cvsignore and he
> > also should check the POTFILES.in. I changed them both when I removed the
> > generated files from CVS.
> > 
> 
> I hadn't thought about that, I'll take care of it.
> 
> I did assume that we agreed that putting these generated files into CVS was
> okay; I'm not against removing them again, but I do think that since GOB
> is not very widely used (I've seen no one else use it, in fact) we might as
> well not put the burden on would-be developers.  If you disagree say so
> and we can decide.

Well, FWIW, I think all of GTK+ objects is pretty badly misguided (compared
to C++ as an alternative).

But, given that we're stuck with using C and GTK objects, I think that GOB
is a great improvement, and that we should probably hold off from requiring
GOB until it becomes more common as standard.  So, I guess that in a few
months, the unstable debian and the cutting-edge redhat will have GOB
packages (in fact, I'll do the debian one if no one beats me to it) and then
it will be less of an issue.

I don't feel very strongly, though.

Jules

-- 
Jules Bean                          |        Any sufficiently advanced 
jules@{debian.org,jellybean.co.uk}  |  technology is indistinguishable
jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk              |               from a perl script