On Tue, Jun 2, 2015, at 03:34, Daiki Ueno wrote: > Benno Schulenberg <[email protected]> writes: > > 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 [...]
But, but... /no/ project should keep its POT file under version control, as it is a derived file. However, I see that for example util-linux and nano do keep their POT file in VCS. Strange. Maybe because the older gettexts kind of obliged them to do that? > > 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). Ehm... not $(GMOFILES) but $(POFILES), right? :) What I don't get is: why are there two recipes for msgmerging PO files? Tthe "$(POFILES): $(POFILESDEPS)" one, and the ".nop.po-update:" one. The first gets run when I touch the POT file, the second when I run 'make update-po'. The first recipe uses --update, the second uses an intermediate file. Why can't the two be melted into a single recipe? Otherwise the 'touch $$lang.po' will have to be added to the first too. Benno -- http://www.fastmail.com - IMAP accessible web-mail
