[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnulib] gnulib vs gettext

From: Karl Berry
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnulib] gnulib vs gettext
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:02:57 -0400

    I prefer a manual update. Some gettext releases need a while of
    testing until I trust them.

Gettext, yes.  But config.rpath?

    The master source of mkinstalldirs is in automake, not gettext. 

That's what I thought.  So then I don't think gettextize should update
mkinstalldirs, unless it didn't exist in the target package or is
definitely newer.  Not that it's a big deal.

    The comment in the serial line is only a reminder which packages use
    the macro.

This seems unmaintainable to me?  The only way to really know what
packages use what macros is to inspect the source.  It doesn't seem
feasible for every GNU maintainer to add their package name and version
to every gnulib macro they use!

    The purpose of the comments is to give an indication who is
    responsible for a .m4 file.

That's important, but that seems different to me than which packages use
it.  The ChangeLog or cvs log showing who has checked in changes to the
file would be my approach to finding out who is responsible.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]