Re: Will the real libiconv please stand up! Was : Re: [Mingw-users] baby steps, an half-finshed packaging of libiconv (very boring)

[Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd yahoo com>]

James Michael DuPont wrote:

> I have been complaining about this all the time, I dont want to have to
> scrouge the net trying to find all the sources that I need to duplicate
> a port. That is why I have been complaining about the section 3 of the
> GPL.

Yes, this gets broken often.

> That states that all the sources and lib that are not part of the
> system have to put placed in the same place as the binaries.

A fact easy to miss with only one reading.  Everyone needs to read and
reread COPYING and
COPYING.LIB.

> If people would follow the guidelines layed down by the FSF,
> then we would not have these problems.

Well, not as many anyway.

> For example, the Dia installer does not have all the sources code of
> all the modules with it.
>
> The pw32 just has binaries, but the source code is missing.
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/pw32/

An all but dead project AFAIK.

> lets look for iconv :
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/libiconv/  -- This is from Haible
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/libiconv  -- Oh another one!
> http://gettext.sourceforge.net/            -- another port!
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingwrep/  -- Your Package
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/      -- The GNU Package
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuwin32/  -- The One I used
> http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/downloads.html -- Contains links to
> the gnu package, but not to yours.
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gettext/   -- And the gettext.

An impressive list if I may say so.  Each one with their own port.  I
often cringe.

> http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-cat.cgi?file=libiconv/libiconv-1.8-2-src&grep=iconv
> CYGWIN also has a port!

Cygwin though isn't native Win32 (i.e.: uses a different runtime other
than MSVCRT).
Therefore, let's not consider this a Win32 port, it's a Cygwin port.

> In the end, I want to a set of debian source packages that can be
> compiled using apt-source/dpkg for windows without any tweaking.

I'd be happy for this.

> As I said, I will try out your package, the only reason I posted this
> unfinished package was so that someone else can try to compile it.
>
> I hope that we can consolidate all these versions floating around into
> a single and consistent set of packages, you must admit that It is very
> confusing!!!

See comments below.

> If the sources had been at the DIA site, then I would have used thiers,
> or at the GIMP/GTK port.
>
> You guys need to fight is out as to WHO is the REAL slim shady!
>
> Will the real "libiconv" please stand up? Please stand up!

The real libiconv would be the one who owns it, the FSF.  One of the
problems with these
smaller packages is the lack of CVS support.  If the official maintainer
used CVS then a
branch could be set and all of the above porters would have contributed
to the same port.

> Then we need to have a link on each of these projects as to who is
> doing what.
>
> Believe me, I dont want to spend any more time than needed on this at
> all!
>
> Maybe a WEBRING would be best, at least you all have each others names,
> now please start talking, agree on a standard disclaimer about where to
> go to get the newest version, who is doing what.

The fight that needs fought is the convincing of each porter to use the
subversions CVS.

Earnie.