This isn't a gnulib question, but this seems like the best set of people
to ask :) -- I've recently gotten a couple new po files for Texinfo, but
submitted via email instead of through the translation project.
I've been telling them to go through the translation project, but now I
wonder if that's
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following patch changes the last files over to the agreed-to style
> for inclusion of `config.h'.
>
> * lib/mkdtemp.c, lib/setenv.c, lib/unsetenv.c: Normalize
> inclusion of `config.h'.
Applied.
Hmm. Just noticed that those files are no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote:
> This isn't a gnulib question, but this seems like the best set of people
> to ask :) -- I've recently gotten a couple new po files for Texinfo, but
> submitted via email instead of through the translation project.
>
> I've been telling them to go through the
> > In the files `getopt.c', `glob.c', and `regexprops-generic.texi' I
> > suggest to replace the word `illegal' with `invalid'.
>
> Not for getopt.c, since POSIX requires the word "illegal" there;
Uh, oh, thanks for the information.
Werner
___
Hi Karl,
> I've been telling them to go through the translation project, but now I
> wonder if that's the general practice, or whether you-all have accepted
> translations "on the fly"?
They should all go through TP, certainly. Apart from the reasons, listed
by Jim, there are two more:
- TP chec
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The hack below fixes that, but I can imagine that it is not an
> acceptable fix, given that this is libc code. Should we rather
> AC_DEFINE([__error_t_defined], 1, ..)?
Yes, I believe we should.
Regards,
Sergey
__
Hmm. Just noticed that those files are normally mirrored from
gettext (see gnulib/config/srclist.txt).
Yes, although I haven't "auto"updated yet because of those differences.
Bruno, would you accept Ralf's patch so we don't have to
decouple those files?
Per Bruno, the checking/m
