[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnulib] gnulib vs gettext
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnulib] gnulib vs gettext |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:20:28 +0200 (CEST) |
Karl Berry wrote:
> I prefer a manual update. Some gettext releases need a while of
> testing until I trust them.
>
> Gettext, yes. But config.rpath?
Especially config.rpath needed some testing on various platforms before
I dared to put it into gnulib.
> The master source of mkinstalldirs is in automake, not gettext.
>
> That's what I thought. So then I don't think gettextize should update
> mkinstalldirs, unless it didn't exist in the target package or is
> definitely newer. Not that it's a big deal.
gettextize-0.12.1 installs the mkinstalldirs from automake-1.7.5, which
is the newest release. And it cannot determine which copy is "definitely
newer", since mkinstalldirs doesn't have a serial number.
> It doesn't seem
> feasible for every GNU maintainer to add their package name and version
> to every gnulib macro they use!
>
> The purpose of the comments is to give an indication who is
> responsible for a .m4 file.
>
> That's important, but that seems different to me than which packages use
> it. The ChangeLog or cvs log showing who has checked in changes to the
> file would be my approach to finding out who is responsible.
Agreed. So let's use this parenthesis comment as an indicator for the
_source_ of a .m4 file.
Bruno
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] gnulib vs gettext,
Bruno Haible <=