Re: Restructuring gettext

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 06:30:20PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
>>>I think we should consider it the responsibility of the package
>>>maintainer to maintain all occurrences of the name of his package.  So,
>>>it would be within your right to change mutt to accomodate your changes
>>>-- as long as you let the mutt maintainer know about this.
>>
>>Okay, I can do that currently -- but once the meta-data is folded into
>>the -src archive (bin archive?) it gets a bit trickier.
>
>I think it's unreasonable to hand the package maintainer responsibility
>to look after anyone who depends on their package.  I think it is
>reasonable to expect the package maintainer to do what Chuck has done
>and announce here the imminent arrival of destructive changes.

And, practically speaking, when Chuck makes his change and Joe Mazzola,
who maintains the boffo package returns from his unnanounced vacation,
he'll be met with scores of angry messages because his package stopped
working.

Of course it makes sense for package maintainers to update their package
dependencies.  We can't rely on this fact, though.

As with everything in cygwin setup, compromises are required.  I probably
went too far in saying that it is the package maintainer's responsibility
to update everyone else's package.  I was just trying to make it clear
that it is ok for a library maintainer to update packages which rely on
the package without fear of reprisal.

That is acceptable.  It's fine to be considerate, too, and let other
people know so that they can make the changes themselves.

As far as package meta-data is concerned, setup.hint will still be
around.

cgf