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

Re: possible bug in gettext (autotools?) or in some packages

Em Thu, 3 May 2001 13:04:07 -0300
Henrique M Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> escreveu:

> Yo KoV,
Yo hmh =)

> On Thu, 03 May 2001, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > I noticed while creating a package for a gettext enabled program, that
> > make install was installing the .mo file as <progname>@INSTOBJEXT@
> Well, file important bugs against those packages, telling them to fix their
> packages to refresh and use the debian-provided gettext instead of keeping
> the cruft from upstream around.
ok, I'll file bugs in the packages I find this problems tonight,
when I have more time to check wether this bugs were not already

> Any Debian developer that needs to do this and doesn't know how, please feel
> free to contact me. I had a lot of misadventures with gettext lately in
> fetchmail, so I'm currently well-versed in the topic.
heh, you'll probably receive some requests from me ;)

> INSTOBJEXT doesn't even exist anymore in gettext 0.10.37...
that's the problem then =)

> > comments?
> Try installing the sid gettext package, and running gettextize -c -f in the
> broken package's top source directory (don't forget to run aclocal,
> autoheader and autoconf to rebuild the configure script using the updated
> gettext macros, or else all hell breaks loose). It just might fix the whole
> crap in one go, if the makefiles are sane. Be warned that the new gettext
> does not tolerate much of the broken crap people sometimes toss into .po
> files as the old one did (which is a Good Thing, btw).
ok, I'll try it in my package, thanks for the advice =)


       Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov <http://www.metainfo.org/kov>
|  .''`.  | Debian GNU/Linux - A matter of quality <http://www.debian.org> |
| : :'  : |Debian-BR enlarging frontiers <http://debian-br.sourceforge.net>|
| `. `'`  |                  Be Happy! Be FREE!                            |
|   `-    |             "Think globaly, act localy!"                       |

Reply to: