[openi18n-im:01302] Re: [proposal] distribute parts of im-sdk separately

Roger So wrote:
> Sorry for not noticing this proposal earlier.  Sounds all very 
> reasonable, and in fact pretty close to what I'm about to do for the 
> official Debian packages.

:-)

> Jens Petersen wrote:
> 
>> So far what I have been doing is just to install "im-sdk/includes/"
>> in a system directory and then have IM_INIT point IM_INCLUDEDIR to that
>> directory, but I think it would be better if those private include files
>> were moved to the appropriate project dir subdirs, which should then 
>> install (as semi-private if necessary).
> 
> Agreed.  Also, I think it'd be better to use things like pkg-config to 
> simplify maintainance.

Funny, on Friday I started adding pkg-config files to iiimcf and iiimp
in my tree.

>> ("im-sdk/acfiles/" is okay of course since it can be used directly 
>> inplace for
>> bootstrapping the tarballs of subdirs.  At least with a small hack.)
> 
> How does GNOME deal with this?  I think they install the m4 macros 
> directly to /usr/share/acfiles...

Yeah, certainly if 3rd party LEs etc are going to use the macros
they should be installed too.

>> iiimecf            ---> iiim-emacs
>> iiimgcf            ---> iiim-gtk
>> iiimjcf            ---> iiim-java
>> iiimqcf            ---> iiim-qt
> 
> How about iiim-client-* for these?

Yeah, makes sense, thanks.

> I gather this is for post-12.2, correct?

Well if the changes to the configure files, etc don't break anything
then I'm planning to commit the changes soon, but we may not actually
release 12.2 as separate tarballs alas.

Jens