- From: Bruno Haible <bruno clisp org>
- To: <locale-list gnome org>
- Subject: Administrativia
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:34:28 +0200
As a result of last week's discussions, it's becoming clear to me that
- gettext's glocale is a good starting point for this project. The
LGPL license is apparently OK. There's a large overlap of functionality.
And the architecture (runtime + a cooker) fits as well.
- The project - with the support for CLDR and the setter APIs - is
larger than what I had initially thought. As a result, I'm reconsidering
* Who volunteers to contribute code or documentation to the project?
* Can it be a GNU project or part of a GNU gettext?
I would very much like it to be a GNU project, so that GNU gettext can
use it. (msggrep for example is hardly usable, because we don't have
a gl_regex function yet. glocale will fix this.)
When it is part of GNU gettext, all contributors need to sign papers
giving the FSF the copyright over their contribution. If it's a separate
project, the contributors can keep their copyrights, but it's harder for
the project to play a central role in GNU.
* Should it be part of GNU gettext or separate?
Should it have a distribution directory, a web site etc. of its own?
The link between glocale and gettext is quite weak: just the 4 functions
from glocale/libintl.h. But:
If it's part of GNU gettext, it will find its way into Linux distributions
rather easily. Otherwise, it will be GNOME which "drags" it into the distros.
If it's part of GNU gettext, the sharing of some libintl files and
other infrastructure is easier.
It it's part of GNU gettext, it will be easier to install on non-glibc
systems. If it's separate, people will need to build and install
1. gettext (for the tools), 2. glocale (for libglocale), 3. gettext again
(so that msggrep works better).
What's your opinion?
* What shall be the name of the library? Is "glocale" OK with everyone?
] [Thread Prev