Bruno Haible wrote on Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:24 +0200:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > So: should po file generation allow the caller to control the timestamp
> > that would be embedded?
>
> No, that would be a regression for the translators.
>
No, it would not. The proposed change is to set the
Santiago Vila wrote:
> But so far, the non-reproducible Debian packages using gettext I've
> seen fail to be reproducible because maintainers insist on
> regenerating a .pot file at build time and performing msgmerge on all
> the .po files with the newly generated .pot file "just in case", or
>
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > it's plain text, and it's a small diff.
>
> This doesn't scale. (For example, in my use-case, I'm dealing with a
> 5000-line unified diff full of one-line changes in date strings and C
> comments and any number of other things. My goal is to get the number of
> lines
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 06:04:58PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> So: should po file generation allow the caller to control the timestamp
> that would be embedded?
Maybe, or maybe not.
But so far, the non-reproducible Debian packages using gettext I've
seen fail to be reproducible because
Bruno Haible wrote on Sat, 15 Jul 2017 19:40 +0200:
> But SO WHAT? It does not get installed on the end user's system.
I am not disputing that .mo files, which are installed on user systems,
should be reproducible.
I am asserting that there is another workflow which would be simpler if
.po file
