Re: Missing file in libxklavier CVS

[Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>]

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 12:54:49AM +0000, Sergey V. Oudaltsov wrote:
> So, now, when you see the origins of this evil (well, technically very
> helpful and necessary) file, I will tell you why it is in libxklavier.
> Jody and me agreed that this file is going to be shipped with
> libxklavier - so unhappy users of X servers other than XFree 4.3+ at
> least will have "something" (which most probably only intersects with
> the real configuration repository of X server). This file in libxklavier
> is only a fall-back solution. And I really do not want to put it into
> CVS - this will add me the headache of synchronizing this CVS with
> xfree86_xkb_xml and XFree86 CVS. Now, when I maintain libxklavier and
> make all the releases, I am sure that the file I use for libxklavier is
> the latest version of xfree86.xml (actually, for a moment, the version
> in XFree86 CVS is broken - it is actually wrong XML, not parsable:)
> 
> For the people who INSIST on building everything from CVS I would say -
> OK - grab the CVS of xfree86_xkb_xml, build xfree86.xml, copy it over to
> libxklavier - and here you are.
> 
> This is the way I see things. And I would prefer to keep them that way
> (well, unless there is a violation of some freedesktop.org policy on
> hosted libraries - or gnome policy on external dependancies). Is it a
> rule that any GNOME _external_ dependancy should be buildable from its
> CVS? If so - I immediately apologise and add the file into CVS. If not -
> I do nothing about it, I just have to ensure that libxklavier
> tarballs/rpms contain that file (if not - kill me with all your
> cruelty).
> 
> I hope folks you understand me. Having 2 copies of some file is a
> problem. Having 3 copies of it - propagating the problem...

There is no difference in my eyes between putting the file in CVS
and putting it in a released tarball.  How about a compromise.

    - Put it in CVS as 'local_non_editable_fall_back_copy_of_xfree86_xkb.xml'
    - Update that copy just before you do a release (as you would
      now for the tarball)
    - Have the makefiles install things with the correct name

Having a release tarball that does not correspond to some version of
CVS makes me uncomfortable.