At Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:50:32 +0200,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Yavor Doganov wrote on Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:17:07AM CEST:
> > В Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:32:54 +0100, Roger Leigh написа:
> > > I'm already doing this in some of my projects by adding
> > > "--no-location" to XGETTEXT_OPTIONS in po/Makevar
Hello,
* Yavor Doganov wrote on Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:17:07AM CEST:
> В Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:32:54 +0100, Roger Leigh написа:
>
> > I'd like to suggest that the best way to tackle the problem is to
> > simply stop generating the source file/line number comments by
> > default; I'm already doing
В Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:32:54 +0100, Roger Leigh написа:
> I'd like to suggest that the best way to tackle the problem is to
> simply stop generating the source file/line number comments by
> default; I'm already doing this in some of my projects by adding
> "--no-location" to XGETTEXT_OPTIONS in po
Le lundi 06 septembre 2010 à 11:25 +0200, Bruno Haible a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> One issue still needs discussion within the planned po / pot file
> integration [1]:
> When should the PO files that are distributed be merged with the POT file?
>
(...)
> The minimalistic approach
> -
> [: Bruno Haible :]
> The minimalistic approach
> -
> [...]
> The drawback with this approach is that translators cannot work with a PO
> file that they take from a tarball; [...]
I'm likely missing something, but...
Why not have a per-language PO update target, e.g.
$
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:25:44AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One issue still needs discussion within the planned po / pot file
> integration [1]:
> When should the PO files that are distributed be merged with the POT file?
Just a few comments from a long-time gettext+automake user whic
Hi,
One issue still needs discussion within the planned po / pot file
integration [1]:
When should the PO files that are distributed be merged with the POT file?
The problem
---
PO files (translations) are produced by translators and integrated to the
project either by a maintainer (who
