On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 10:19:45 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
[...]
> > Please support these cases as well, at least by adding a
> > --same-copyright option (without arguments) that produces
> > a .pot file with
> >
> > # Copyright (C) YEAR THE
Francesco Poli writes:
>> I don't think it is boring nor error prone -- it just means to
>> concatenate two files.
>
> Well, not really just a file concatenation... More a job for sed or
> awk, as I said. But this would be the case, if you automated the task.
I
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:21:29 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > • I post-process the .pot template generated by xgettext and insert
> > the correct copyright notices: this can be done by hand (boring and
> > error prone!) or automatically, for
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:16:10 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
I would definitely prefer to see xgettext changed, rather than having
to do sed or awk tricks to post-process its output.
So, to me, (4) is the least preferred option.
Sorry, I am not
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
• I post-process the .pot template generated by xgettext and insert
the correct copyright notices: this can be done by hand (boring and
error prone!) or automatically, for instance, with some sed or awk
trick
I don't think it is boring nor
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:58:31 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
I'd definitely vote for 3, but, wait!, even better, I would add a new
option named --copyright-notices (or maybe there's a better name, I
don't know...), where all the copyright notices
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
I would definitely prefer to see xgettext changed, rather than having
to do sed or awk tricks to post-process its output.
So, to me, (4) is the least preferred option.
Sorry, I am not convinced. Again, I am reluctant to add a new option to
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
Besides that, the patch seems to only address point (B) of my original
bug report (multiple copyright holders), but not point (A) or point (C)
(YEAR and PACKAGE placeholders). Or am I misreading the patch?
As (C) is trivial, I've pushed a fix:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:05:17 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
Besides that, the patch seems to only address point (B) of my original
bug report (multiple copyright holders), but not point (A) or point (C)
(YEAR and PACKAGE placeholders). Or am I
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
I'd definitely vote for 3, but, wait!, even better, I would add a new
option named --copyright-notices (or maybe there's a better name, I
don't know...), where all the copyright notices may be specified with
their own line breaks, as in:
I'm
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 05:49:00PM +0900, Daiki Ueno wrote:
What else was remaining to close this bug?
In Debian we usually close a bug when there is a new package available
in unstable fixing the bug. This is what I will do for the Debian
package but of course you might have different rules for
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:06:11 +0200 Santiago Vila wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 05:49:00PM +0900, Daiki Ueno wrote:
What else was remaining to close this bug?
In Debian we usually close a bug when there is a new package available
in unstable fixing the bug. This is what I will do for the
Daiki Ueno u...@gnu.org writes:
By the way, after looking into the history and the documentation more
closely, I realized that my argument on copyright notice was pointless.
I'm sorry. I'm now in favor of adding support for multiple copyright
holders, like the attached patch, which makes
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:10:25 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
[...]
What I really fail to understand is: if some placeholders are replaced
by
xgettext --copyright-holder=Python Software Foundation \
--package-name=myapplication
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
I am frankly having a hard time in seeing why the placeholder PACKAGE
should be replaced in one occurrence, but not in the other.
And in figuring out why the placeholder THE PACKAGE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDER
should be replaced, while the YEAR
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
dist-hook:
echo # Copyright (C) ... $(distdir)/po/hello.pot
This would place the copyright notice at the end of the .pot file,
wouldn't it? This is not necessarily what one would want to do.
I just gave you an example how it could be
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:03:51 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:48:20 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
I noticed that xgettext does not properly replace all the relevant
placeholders in the output .pot file, when told to do so
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org writes:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:48:20 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
I noticed that xgettext does not properly replace all the relevant
placeholders in the output .pot file, when told to do so through
command-line options.
I doubt if it is meaningful to
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 10:48:20 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote:
I noticed that xgettext does not properly replace all the relevant
placeholders in the output .pot file, when told to do so through
command-line options.
I doubt if it is meaningful to have a real copyright notice in an
auto-generated
Package: gettext
Version: 0.18.1.1-9
Severity: normal
Hello!
Thanks for maintaining gettext in Debian!
I noticed that xgettext does not properly replace all the relevant
placeholders in the output .pot file, when told to do so through
command-line options.
I'll try to explain the issues with a
20 matches
Mail list logo