Paul Eggert wrote: > > - You refer to the glibc documentation where I referred to ABOUT-NLS. > > ABOUT-NLS is platform independent. Is your problem with ABOUT-NLS that > > it is not installed as an info file? > > Yes; I want a reference that readers can easily follow, since I'm > assuming they're reading info (or a web page, or a PDF document, or > whatever). If there's a better such reference than the glibc manual > please let me now.
Yes, could you please add a reference to node 'Users' in gettext.info as primary reference? It doesn't yet contain the complete info from ABOUT-NLS, but I'm adding it before gettext-0.15. You can leave glibc as secondary reference, I don't mind. > > - In runtime-po/ it would make sense to save the diff between the normal > > po/Makefile.in.in and this one, and enhance the bootstrap script to > > apply these diffs. This should make the migration to gettext-0.15 etc. > > smoother, without introducing inconsistencies (i.e. without risking > > use of a 0.15 gettext.m4 with a 0.14.5 Makefile.in.in). > > I've been thinking about that too, but I have a more radical proposal > (A): simply revert to the standard Makefile.in.in (so that we don't > have to maintain any difference), and place the old translation > strings, whatever they are, in some file maintained by hand. > > A problem with the current approach is that translation strings > survive even when they shouldn't. For example, if I misspell a > diagnostic, the misspelling will accumulate into the .pot file even > though I correct the misspelling before the next official release. > This problem is already starting to happen, because I see that the > formats in the current diagnostics aren't quite right for 64-bit > machines (once we fix some other deficiencies), and I'd like to fix > this before Bison 2.1 comes out. You're right. I didn't think at that. Actually the way I maintain archive.tar.gz in gettext in similar, with a special modification done by hand before "make dist". > To help implement this, can a .pot file be in POTFILES.in? That is, > would it work if runtime-po/POTFILES.in looked like this? > > data/yacc.c > runtime-po/bison-2.1.pot > runtime-po/bison-2.2.pot Yes, absolutely, this will work. You just need to add runtime-po/bison-2.?.pot to the toplevel Makefile.am's EXTRA_DIST. Actually, among runtime-po/bison-2.1.pot and runtime-po/bison-2.2.pot you only need the last one. (Because it's supposed to contain all messages from the earlier releases.) > I installed the following patch. > Please let me know if you see any problems with it. > 2005-07-13 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * PACKAGING: New file, suggested by Bruno Haible and taken from > similar wording in gettext's PACKAGING file. > * NEWS: Mention PACKAGING. > * Makefile.am (EXTRA_DIST): Add PACKAGING. Looks all fine to me, except for a typo in PACKAGING: "to in the bison package". Bruno
