Re: [PATCH 1/2] bootstrap: Break automake dependency on generated files. (was Re: Let’s translate!)

[Julien Lepiller]

Le 25 avril 2019 10:50:16 GMT+02:00, "Ludovic Courtès" <address@hidden> a écrit 
:
>Hello,
>
>Julien Lepiller <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Le Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:51:37 +0200,
>> Miguel <address@hidden> a écrit :
>
>[...]
>
>>> El Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:30:26 +0200
>>> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> escribió:
>
>>> > Also, I don’t actually use the ./bootstrap script.  :-)  
>>> 
>>> Currently it is only a call to autoreconf -fvi, but it's there for a
>>> reason, isn't it?
>
>It’s there mostly because people are used to having such a file, but I
>like the fact that it does nothing magical.
>
>> I actually agree with Miguel here. The phony target would not allow
>us
>> to update the manual. It's probably a matter of preferences, but I
>> prefer an up to date manual with some English sentences than a fully
>> translated but outdated manual. I wouldn't use a manual that could
>> refer to an older version.
>
>I agree that up-to-date is preferable.
>
>> You will only be bothered when new translations appear, in which case
>> you'll have to run ./bootstrap again, but on the other hand, you will
>> never be bothered by *.texi files being changed all the time.
>
>So what would one have to do when preparing a new release?  Presumably
>nothing because the up-to-date texi files would be checked in?
>
>IOW, running ./bootstrap is something what would matter primarily to
>translators, is that correct?

It would be needed to build the translated manuals, so I think it would be 
needed to successfuly run make from the git checkout. Translators should not 
even care about the source. Or maybe running only autoreconf will simply not 
build the translated manuals, I'm not sure.

But once you run ./bootstrap once, you should not have to run it again until a 
new language is available for the manual.

>
>Thanks,
>Ludo’.