Re: [PATCH] Do not use gettextize and i18n round 2 Re: I18n: The gettext proposal

--On Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:35 AM -0500 Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
wrote:

> That's not necessarily our problem, as long as we don't ourselves
> distribute the static binary. If a user wishes to create a static
> binary and use it without distributing it, the LGPL restrictions on
> distributing static binaries don't come into play.

Well, I thought I just saw a thread about trying to promote creating binaries
for Subversion rather than distributing source. *shrug*

> This has been a long-standing point of disagreement between me and the
> svn source code base. As I understand it, the difference between
># include "foo" and #include <foo> is that the former searches the source
> code file's directory before the include path, and that's it. By
> implication, the only files we should be including with "foo" are the
> directory-private headers like wc.h. But we seem to include all of our
> own headers with "foo".

*shrug*

It just seems to be our convention to include our own headers via "" and
external headers via <>. But, I'm just following our convention not altering
our precedent. More importantly, Nicolás had a bogus define protecting the
include's which prevented it from being included (we purposely don't define
HAVE_CONFIG_H), and the include line was in the wrong location (too high up in
the file). -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 30 19:02:57 2004