ITP: Guile 1.5.6

[Charles Wilson]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

> Ok.  But (nitpick) shouldn't those be in either libintlX, or in
> gettext-devel?  I didn't imagine they would be in gettext, so I didn't
> even look there...


Yes, ordinarily you would be correct (just like you were earlier today 
vis a vis netpbm <g>).  However, the gettext package was split up in a 
weird way, based on suggestions from Bruno Haible, the "real" GNU 
gettext maintainer.

He specifically stated that:

   gettext
        Contents: Runtime libraries and programs.
        Audience: Anyone who wants to run internationalized programs.

   gettext-tools
        Contents: Tools and documentation for developers and translators.
        Audience: Anyone who wants to develop or localize internationalized
                  programs, i.e. developers and translators.
        Dependencies: requires gettext.


    gettext

       $prefix/bin/gettext
       $prefix/bin/ngettext
       $prefix/man/man1/gettext.1
       $prefix/man/man1/ngettext.1
       $prefix/doc/gettext/gettext.1.html
       $prefix/doc/gettext/ngettext.1.html
       $prefix/share/gettext/ABOUT-NLS
       $prefix/share/gettext/libintl.jar
       $prefix/lib/libintl.*
       $prefix/lib/charset.alias
       $prefix/share/locale/locale.alias
       $prefix/include/libintl.h

    gettext-tools

       Everything else, i.e. currently:


Unfortunately, we aren't linux -- so we must separate the runtime 
libraries from the binaries.  Hence,

   libintl2 (runtime libs)
   gettext
   gettext-tools

except that since 'gettext-tools' contained "development" tools, so I 
renamed it 'gettext-devel'.  Perhaps that was misguided.

However, the important point here is that Bruno **specifically** stated 
that the link libraries should go in the gettext package.  Without an 
overriding reason to violate that 'suggestion', I went ahead with it.

Sorry for the confusion.  :-)

--Chuck