From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2011, #11; Tue, 24) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:29:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4DDCD9F8.9080105@viscovery.net> References: <7vboyr7oxh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4DDCA0D2.2070604@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 25 12:29:31 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QPBLF-0004v8-9Z for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:29:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752048Ab1EYK3T convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 06:29:19 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:2068 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751512Ab1EYK3T convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 06:29:19 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254-static.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QPBKz-0001cw-Hz; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:29:13 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45EFD1660F; Wed, 25 May 2011 12:29:13 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 5/25/2011 11:36, schrieb =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason: > Aren't you confusing ab/i18n-scripts-basic with ab/i18n-scripts? No, I'm aware of the difference and purposes of the two topics. >> ... if there were a NO_GETTEXT switch that simply avoids all >> the problems on Windows. Is there such a switch? >=20 > There isn't and can't be without major re-organizations because > shellscripts don't have something like the C preprocessor. Well, we do preprocess the shell scripts. Wouldn't it be a matter of if test -z '@@NO_GETTEXT@@' then ... regular eval_gettext definition ... else ... dummy eval_gettext definition ... fi with a corresponding extension of the sed script in the Makefile? > But I'll just fix the Windows issue soon and submit a new series for > inclusion in next. Thanks! I just wanted to be sure that ab/i18n-scripts does not end up i= n master in a state that leaves Windows in limbo. -- Hannes