[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ready for 2.21.80?
From: |
Jonas Hahnfeld |
Subject: |
Re: ready for 2.21.80? |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:16:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.1 |
Am Samstag, den 31.10.2020, 15:08 +0000 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> Fails trying to do the PO make:
>
> phil@ubuntu12:~/lilypond-git$ make -C $LILYPOND_BUILD_DIR po-replace
> make: Entering directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build'
> /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:116:
> /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-vars.make: No
> such file or directory
> /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:123:
> /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-rules.make: No
> such file or directory
> /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/.././make/stepmake.make:125:
> /home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make: No
> such file or directory
> make: *** No rule to make target
> '/home/phil/lilypond-git/build/../stepmake/stepmake/toplevel-targets.make'.
> Stop.
> make: Leaving directory '/media/IntelSSD/lilypond/lilypond-git/build'
Hm, these files are gone since August. Is that a fresh build directory,
with the source a checkout of stable/2.22? What puzzles me is that it
(apparently) worked for 2.21.7 and there has been no change to the PO
infrastructure since then (only before).
>
> On 29/10/2020 15:52, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2020, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld:
> > > As the title says. We still need to merge the PO translations (see
> > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/476 ) and pick
> > > them to stable/2.22. If you speak one of the concerned languages that
> > > I've been hijacking the translation for (ca, eo, es, it, nl, sv),
> > > please consider giving it a short look. I'll also merge the translation
> > > branch to stable/2.22 before asking Phil for a release.
> > All items from my list are done (above + fixing the translated snippets
> > when building in-tree) and stable/2.22 looks good from what I can tell.
> > So, I think we're ready for a first release candidate.
> > Phil, if you have time, could you run a build on stable/2.22? I will
> > stop picking fixes into the branch to avoid any interference (commits
> > to translation can of course continue).
> >
> > Regards
> > Jonas
>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: ready for 2.21.80?, (continued)
Re: ready for 2.21.80?, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/10/29
Re: ready for 2.21.80?, Phil Holmes, 2020/10/31