Rob Funk <rfunk(_at_)funknet(_dot_)net> writes:
Matthias Andree wrote:
Makefile.in.in is a generated file.
In that case I guess we should remove it from svn. I'm sure there are
more. (I've already noticed that some diffs and .orig/.rej files made it
in there and should be removed.)
They're gone now:
|Deleting fetchmail.diff
|Deleting fr.po.orig
|Deleting fr.po.rej
|Deleting pl.po.orig
|Deleting pl.po.rej
|
|Committed revision 3884.
I'm not comfortable with removing Makefile.in.in, it appears to have
local changes by ESR, and replacing it with the one from gettext 0.13
broke the build horribly. This is one of the files that needs a
"--force" to generate (in gettextize) besides that, as I figured.
IOW, this is delicate, I'm not touching it, for I know too little about
gettext and don't want to learn gettext this month if I can help it.
gettext.info suggests listing the source file rather than a generated
file, hence:
The newer autoconf versions are better, but I wonder if you would want
the bild super structure replaced, I'd suggest deferring that to 6.2.7.
Of course, one problem with removing generated files from svn is that we
end up with different autoconf versions being used. I have autoconf
2.59.
So do I.
I've commited the ok = 0 initialization in one change, the warning fixes
in another and haven't yet committed the POTFILES.in patch, different
suggestion above. It adds an xgettext warning but fixes the build.
It'd be nice to get rid of the warning if possible, but if the resulting
code handles translation properly then it's probably no big deal.
We'd introduce more local changes into files that gettextize has
provided, which isn't very sensible as it is maintenance intensive.
--
Matthias Andree
Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95