Re: X does not support es_CU.UTF-8 message
Le Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:36:00 +0200, Dominique Michel a écrit : > Is it because my patch is wrong or miss something? Or is it because it > is no spanish translation files in fvwm at that time (I begun to make > some today, but it will take some time)? When I try to open po/fvwm.pot with poedit, it fail with 09:35:38 AM: /tmp/poeditgUBFPw/0ref.pot:321: duplicate message definition... 09:35:38 AM: /tmp/poeditgUBFPw/0ref.pot:36: ...this is the location of the first definition 09:35:38 AM: msgmerge: found 1 fatal error gtranslator warm me about this too, but is able to open the file: In consequence, I am not sure if the resulting translation file is fully usable. And also: # make fvwm.pot-update rm -f fvwmrc.pot; \ rcpotfiles='../fvwm/ConfigFvwmSetup ../modules/FvwmForm/FvwmForm-Setup.in'; \ rm -f duplicate; \ for file in $rcpotfiles; do \ perl -ne 's/\[gt\.((\\.|.)+?)\]/ print \ "\#$ARGV: line $.\n"."msgid \"$1\"\n"."msgstr \"\"\n\n"/ge' \ $file >> duplicate; \ done; \ msguniq duplicate > fvwmrc.pot; duplicate:1: keyword "SCALAR" unknown duplicate:1:7: syntax error duplicate:1: keyword "x250c430" unknown duplicate:4: keyword "SCALAR" unknown duplicate:4:7: syntax error duplicate:4: keyword "x250c460" unknown duplicate:7: keyword "SCALAR" unknown duplicate:7:7: syntax error duplicate:7: keyword "x250c430" unknown duplicate:10: keyword "SCALAR" unknown duplicate:10:7: syntax error duplicate:10: keyword "x250c460" unknown duplicate:13: keyword "SCALAR" unknown duplicate:13:7: syntax error duplicate:13: keyword "x250c430" unknown duplicate:16: keyword "SCALAR" unknown duplicate:16:7: syntax error duplicate:16: keyword "x250c460" unknown duplicate:19: keyword "SCALAR" unknown duplicate:19:7: syntax error msguniq: too many errors, aborting make: *** [fvwm.pot-update] Error 1 > > Dominique > -- "We have the heroes we deserve."
Re: X does not support es_CU.UTF-8 message
Dominique Michel wrote: > When I try to open po/fvwm.pot with poedit, it fail with > > 09:35:38 AM: /tmp/poeditgUBFPw/0ref.pot:321: duplicate message > definition... 09:35:38 AM: /tmp/poeditgUBFPw/0ref.pot:36: ...this is > the location of the first definition 09:35:38 AM: msgmerge: found 1 > fatal error > > gtranslator warm me about this too, but is able to open the file: In > consequence, I am not sure if the resulting translation file is fully > usable. If I open po/fvwm.pot from CVS with poedit directly or via 'New catalog from Template' no errors occur. My poedit version: 1.4.6 Thomas
Re: X does not support es_CU.UTF-8 message
Le Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:05:10 +0200, Thomas Funk a écrit : > Dominique Michel wrote: > > When I try to open po/fvwm.pot with poedit, it fail with > > > > 09:35:38 AM: /tmp/poeditgUBFPw/0ref.pot:321: duplicate message > > definition... 09:35:38 AM: /tmp/poeditgUBFPw/0ref.pot:36: ...this > > is the location of the first definition 09:35:38 AM: msgmerge: > > found 1 fatal error > > > > gtranslator warm me about this too, but is able to open the file: > > In consequence, I am not sure if the resulting translation file is > > fully usable. > If I open po/fvwm.pot from CVS with poedit directly or via 'New > catalog from Template' no errors occur. My poedit version: 1.4.6 > > Thomas > You are right, I was working with the wrong cvs branch. The web site is a little bit confusing: http://www.fvwm.org/documentation/dev_cvs.php quote: You use the CVS checkout (or co) command to retrieve an initial copy of the code. The simplest form of this command, for retrieving the latest code, doesn't require any label: cvs -d :pserver:anonym...@cvs.fvwm.org:/home/cvs/fvwm checkout fvwm endquote With that command, the downloaded code is outdated, as well than with the 2.7 branch. Someone should update that page with the actual situation: cvs -d :pserver:anonym...@cvs.fvwm.org:/home/cvs/fvwm co -r branch-2_6 fvwm Dominique -- "We have the heroes we deserve."
Re: CVS domivogt: * Fix many unused variable warnings in modules (write only).
HI, On 14 April 2013 09:57, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 03:41:48AM -0500, c...@math.uh.edu wrote: >> CVSROOT: /home/cvs/fvwm >> Module name: fvwm >> Changes by: domivogt13/04/14 03:41:48 None of these changes seem to be following the fvwm-2_6 branch. Is this intentional? I did spend a while before fixing up a bunch of warnings. Not sure if I've already done so or not with the version of GCC you claim to be using, but I don't think you're looking at the correct branch point in CVS for starters. -- Thomas Adam
CVS tadam fvwm-web: Remove obsolete CVS information
CVSROOT:/home/cvs/fvwm Module name:fvwm-web Changes by: tadam 13/04/15 13:50:24 Modified files: . : ChangeLog documentation : dev_cvs.php Log message: Remove obsolete CVS information Reference branch-2_6 since it's tripping too many people up. Whack.
Re: CVS domivogt: * Fix many unused variable warnings in modules (write only).
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On 14 April 2013 09:57, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 03:41:48AM -0500, c...@math.uh.edu wrote: > >> CVSROOT: /home/cvs/fvwm > >> Module name: fvwm > >> Changes by: domivogt13/04/14 03:41:48 > > None of these changes seem to be following the fvwm-2_6 branch. Is > this intentional? I did spend a while before fixing up a bunch of > warnings. Not sure if I've already done so or not with the version of > GCC you claim to be using, but I don't think you're looking at the > correct branch point in CVS for starters. I'm looking at the main branch. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: CVS domivogt: * Fix many unused variable warnings in modules (write only).
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:12:48PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > > On 14 April 2013 09:57, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 03:41:48AM -0500, c...@math.uh.edu wrote: > > >> CVSROOT: /home/cvs/fvwm > > >> Module name: fvwm > > >> Changes by: domivogt13/04/14 03:41:48 > > > > None of these changes seem to be following the fvwm-2_6 branch. Is > > this intentional? I did spend a while before fixing up a bunch of > > warnings. Not sure if I've already done so or not with the version of > > GCC you claim to be using, but I don't think you're looking at the > > correct branch point in CVS for starters. > > I'm looking at the main branch. Right; it has to be branch-2_6. -- Thomas Adam
Re: CVS domivogt: * Fix many unused variable warnings in modules (write only).
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:12:26PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:12:48PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: > > > On 14 April 2013 09:57, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 03:41:48AM -0500, c...@math.uh.edu wrote: > > > >> CVSROOT: /home/cvs/fvwm > > > >> Module name: fvwm > > > >> Changes by: domivogt13/04/14 03:41:48 > > > > > > None of these changes seem to be following the fvwm-2_6 branch. Is > > > this intentional? I did spend a while before fixing up a bunch of > > > warnings. Not sure if I've already done so or not with the version of > > > GCC you claim to be using, but I don't think you're looking at the > > > correct branch point in CVS for starters. > > > > I'm looking at the main branch. > > Right; it has to be branch-2_6. Then why was it forked in the first place? Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
Re: CVS domivogt: * Fix many unused variable warnings in modules (write only).
Dominik Vogt writes: R> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote: >> On 14 April 2013 09:57, Dominik Vogt wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 03:41:48AM -0500, c...@math.uh.edu wrote: >> >> CVSROOT: /home/cvs/fvwm >> >> Module name: fvwm >> >> Changes by: domivogt13/04/14 03:41:48 >> >> None of these changes seem to be following the fvwm-2_6 branch. Is >> this intentional? I did spend a while before fixing up a bunch of >> warnings. Not sure if I've already done so or not with the version of >> GCC you claim to be using, but I don't think you're looking at the >> correct branch point in CVS for starters. > > I'm looking at the main branch. Yes, CVS isn't quite right. I think it was after 2.6 we had a 2.7 branch created but the current plan is to stop with odd numbered releases that never happen and stay with 2.6. If I knew enough about CVS to remove the 2.7 branch I would. I would not be opposed to creating 2.8 if that's what it takes. -- Dan Espen
