[Gtk-sharp-list] New (stupid) application :)
Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:21:59 -0500
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 05:24, email@example.com wrote:
> Okay, But I was hoping on a way to convert po to manifest resources. The reason
> why is because all current translator software is based on the po format. Also
> are the current GNOME and Gtk+ translation teams focussed on that format and
> way of working.
> We (Gtk-Sharp) programmers will have a hard time trying to convince those people
> to switch to another format. IMHO it would be better if somebody builds a
> convertor and a way to get it into the compilation steps. So the po-convertion
> should happen before the compilation, and the compilation could include them as
> resource-files into the build.
I was wondering how Glade apps were translated, anyway...
<snip what="auto* stuff"/>
> No, not really. However. Using the auto* tools "correctly" will make it a lot
> more easy for packagers to package the application. I am building a Linux
> application. Platform indendancy is nice but it's not what I am trying to do.
> Okay, it would be nice if my application could run on both Windows and Linux.
> But my primary goal is to get it run on Linux, and then make stuff work on
> Windows. I know that this goal is not very nobel for the Windows people :-).
I fail to see how auto* makes packagers lives easier.
Actually, that's an almost-lie. The one thing that auto* tools make
easy is simple generation of the "make distcheck" target, which (in
turn) requires the ability to place compiled binaries outside of the
While somewhat useful, I don't think this is actually *required* by most
people, and I certainly can't imagine it being required for packaging.
(And yes, I've done packaging for the mono-tools CVS repository, to
generate RPMs in a somewhat automated fashion. It required some support
from type-reflector's Makefile, mostly supporting the "distdir" target,
which makes it easy to make a .tar.gz from the source code, but nothing
*required* the auto* tools.)
> It seems that somebody needs to start thinking about such issues (like, when
> once should use the auto* tools or when once should use Nant or or or custom
> Makefiles or build using whatever new tool shipped with Mono. And how to do
> multi languages correctly, and stuff like that). Then somebdoy should write
> everything down :). Soon!
> Maybe we could start a draft ?
That would likely be useful, but it is also likely to suffer from
opinion overload. :-)
Mostly because there is no "one true answer."