Re: [bug-gettext] a .gmo file is not regenerated when its .po file changed

[Daiki Ueno]

Benno Schulenberg <address@hidden> writes:

> But, but... /no/ project should keep its POT file under version control,
> as it is a derived file.  However, I see that for example util-linux and
> nano do keep their POT file in VCS.  Strange.  Maybe because the older
> gettexts kind of obliged them to do that?

Might be.  Perhaps developer keeps a POT and PO files in a repository,
when he doesn't want to require gettext-tools when building from
checkout.

>> > But... shouldn't then all "CATALOGS" be replaced with "POFILES" in that
>> > stamp-po comment?  Otherwise it doesn't make sense to me.
>> 
>> I think you are right, the occurrences of $(CATALOGS) should be
>> $(GMOFILES).
>
> Ehm... not $(GMOFILES) but $(POFILES), right?  :)

Sorry, I don't get what you mean.  The stamp-po rule really updates
$(GMOFILES), subsequently after $(POFILES) and $(DOMAIN).pot, no?

> What I don't get is: why are there two recipes for msgmerging PO files?
> Tthe "$(POFILES): $(POFILESDEPS)" one, and the ".nop.po-update:" one.
> The first gets run when I touch the POT file, the second when I run
> 'make update-po'.  The first recipe uses --update, the second uses an
> intermediate file.  Why can't the two be melted into a single recipe?

I do not know of the reason, but if the consolidation is possible in a
portable way, that would be great.

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno