[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gettext in build system
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: gettext in build system |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:56:06 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 08:09:56PM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
>
> Also, as something merely cosmetic, messages.pot could be $(PACKAGE).pot,
> which is more common.
Changed in my gettext branch.
> > > +#define _(str) gettext(str)
> > And I'm not sure if this is the right place to define _. Isn't there
> > a system-wide definition?
>
> This, and others, sometimes go in a common .h to avoid duplication. Many
> grub utilities are going to add this kind of stuff.
I wonder where would we put this. Is there any convention?
> > > + textdomain ("grub");
> > What's the usual way to handle this? TEXTDOMAIN macro?
>
> As Colin said, $PACKAGE is common.
> I haven't tested this patch yet, but I'm not sure if a bindtextdomain()
> call is needed here too.
This requires LOCALEDIR. Should we add po.m4 in order to get this, or
just define it ourselves?
> The rest looks good, given there's no automake.
We have aclocal now (in my branch). Is gettext.m4 usable to us?
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
- gettext in build system, Robert Millan, 2009/11/15
- Re: gettext in build system, Robert Millan, 2009/11/15
- Re: gettext in build system, Colin Watson, 2009/11/15
- Re: gettext in build system, Jordi Mallach, 2009/11/16
- Re: gettext in build system, Jordi Mallach, 2009/11/16
- Re: gettext in build system, Robert Millan, 2009/11/17
- Re: gettext in build system, Robert Millan, 2009/11/17