Incorrect advice about gettext?

[Zack Weinberg]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 04:14:45AM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:
> * Zack Weinberg (zackw@stanford.edu) [20010404 09:23]:
> 
> > # All patches needed for GCC have been incorporated into the official
> > # gettext CVS. These sources may be accessed via anonymous cvs. The root for
> > # the gettext CVS is :pserver:anoncvs@anoncvs.cygnus.com:/cvs/gettext
> > # Password is `anoncvs' like for the GCC CVS.
> 
> > There are no source differences between 0.10.36 and the CVS tree
> > referenced in ABOUT-GCC-NLS.
> > 
> > What's going on here?
> 
> Was that 3.0 or 3.1?

Same text in both.

> In any case thanks for reminding me to change
> ABOUT-GCC-NLS now that gettext 0.10.36 is out. And the --defines is
> bogus as xgettext looks into defines by default. I'll bring my trees up to
> date and then check again.

Aha.  If I cut out the --defines I get a bunch of warnings:

collect2.c:370: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
collect2.c:392: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
collect2.c:416: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
collect2.c:440: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
cpperror.c:37: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
cpperror.c:467: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
diagnostic.c:916: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
gcc.c:6079: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
gcc.c:6101: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
gcc.c:6121: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
gcov.c:288: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg
protoize.c:578: warning: keyword nested in keyword arg

Should I worry?

There's been a lot of changes in the message list since it was last
regenerated, I don't know how much use sv.po is anymore.

zw