This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: other/2857: i18n, translations does not work
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Subject: Re: other/2857: i18n, translations does not work
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:10:33 -0700
- Cc: Philipp Thomas <pthomas at suse dot de>, Dennis Bjorklund <db at zigo dot dhs dot org>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Gabriel dot Dos-Reis at cmla dot ens-cachan dot fr, gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20010525114533.E15640@jeffreys.suse.de> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105251048380.29024-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:51:12AM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001, Philipp Thomas wrote:
>
> > > Question: do the release scripts need to generate the compiled .gmo files?
> > > As those are binary, we surely don't want to put them in CVS.
> >
> > Yes, they would need to do so, according to GNU standards, as the user
> > should not need to have the tools to create them.
>
> Since it looks like the Makefiles by default create catalogs in the build
> directory, could you make the necessary changes - either to the release
> script Mark posted, or to the Makefiles to build them in the source
> directory instead - for them to be included in release tarballs?
May I suggest that the Makefiles continue to drop compiled catalogs in
the build directory, and the release script move them to the source
directory? We've just been through another cycle of complaints about
all the crap that gets written into the source directory.
The changes I'm testing handle this case fine.
--
zw It may of course be possible that risks-awareness and extreme care are
developed in the course of dancing with the fuckup fairy in the pale
moonlight.
-- Anthony de Boer