Benno Schulenberg <[email protected]> writes: > No need to be afraid. Mistakes may be made. I see you > already have introduced the ability to decouple 'make dist' > from 'make update-po', and 'make update-po' from 'make > tralala.pot'. I can understand why a maintainer would want > the first one, but I fail to grasp the use of the second one?
That was a request from GNOME, where they don't check-in POT files into the repository (maybe because it would cause a lot of noises due to line number changes, etc): https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gettext/2013-07/msg00004.html > If necessary, we can make the same conditional decoupling > between GMO and PO files, or whatever it's going to be. That might make sense. Even though I did the above changes, I keep in mind that the changes affect the default behavior. If the new behavior is customisable, that might be better. >> > (By the way, what are $(CATALOGS) exactly? How are they different from >> > $(POFILES) or $(GMOFILES)?) >> >> It basically same as $(GMOFILES), but $(CATALOGS) depends on the LINGUAS >> envvar specified at configure time. See m4/po.m4. > > But... shouldn't then all "CATALOGS" be replaced with "POFILES" in that > stamp-po comment? Otherwise it doesn't make sense to me. I think you are right, the occurrences of $(CATALOGS) should be $(GMOFILES). Regards, -- Daiki Ueno
