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

[Daiki Ueno]

Benno Schulenberg <address@hidden> writes:

> No need to be afraid.  Mistakes may be made.  I see you
> already have introduced the ability to decouple 'make dist'
> from 'make update-po', and 'make update-po' from 'make
> tralala.pot'.  I can understand why a maintainer would want
> the first one, but I fail to grasp the use of the second one?

That was a request from GNOME, where they don't check-in POT files into
the repository (maybe because it would cause a lot of noises due to line
number changes, etc):
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gettext/2013-07/msg00004.html

> If necessary, we can make the same conditional decoupling
> between GMO and PO files, or whatever it's going to be.

That might make sense.  Even though I did the above changes, I keep in
mind that the changes affect the default behavior.  If the new behavior
is customisable, that might be better.

>> > (By the way, what are $(CATALOGS) exactly?  How are they different from
>> > $(POFILES) or $(GMOFILES)?)
>> 
>> It basically same as $(GMOFILES), but $(CATALOGS) depends on the LINGUAS
>> envvar specified at configure time.  See m4/po.m4.
>
> 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).

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno