[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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]