Future of cashutil. (was Re: Radically improve autogen.sh)

[Christian Stimming]

Neil Williams schrieb:
>>>My only problem with that on Debian is this build-within-a-build in
>>>cashutil branch. 
>>
>>You shouldn't use a build-within-a-build.  You should integrate
>>the cashutil dirs into the main configure script.
> 
> But then I can't have a separate po directory. 

Agreed, at least not in the default gettexttize setup. Of course keeping 
the two po files separate is good and should be kept this way.

>>In the long run I agree with Derek: If the command line tool "cashutil" 
>>is supposed to be distributed together with gnucash
> 
> No, it's not - it can be but it is not essential. (...)
> Users should have the choice to install cashutil only, gnucash only or both. 
> If installing only cashutil, there must be NO GUI dependencies of any kind 
> and definitely no guile.

Okay. I agree to the last proposal. However, usually one expects the 
following equation to hold:

   "one set of requirements [approximately]" == "one tarball"

Since you want to emphasize that cashutil has a drastically reduced set 
of requirements, then I think this is probably better expressed by *not* 
including this into the gnucash tarball. (I mean, there's even the 
separate gnucash-docs tarball...)

 From what you explained, I would prefer that you keep cashutil in a 
separate tarball, hence there's no need to have the gnucash ./configure 
(or ./autogen.sh) to call the cashutil ./configure. You are free to keep 
this in gnucash's trunk SVN for now (which might make code sharing 
easier), but IMHO it's unnecessary to spend time on hooking cashutil's 
configure into gnucash's configure. Simply keep the two as separate 
tarballs and that's it.

Christian