Re: [Libguestfs] [PATCH 2/3] po: fix dependencies for libguestfs.pot extraction

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:02:28PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote: > On Thursday 05 December 2013 15:53:58 Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:30:05PM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote: > > > Fix the dependencies of the libguestfs.pot target: other than > > > using > > > the right make variables holding the contents of the POTFILES, > > > depend also on the POTFILES themselves. > > > --- > > > > > > po/Makefile.am | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/po/Makefile.am b/po/Makefile.am > > > index b0a8038..a8343ec 100644 > > > --- a/po/Makefile.am > > > +++ b/po/Makefile.am > > > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ XGETTEXT_ARGS = \ > > > > > > --msgid-bugs-address="$(MSGID_BUGS_ADDRESS)" \ > > > --directory=$(top_srcdir) > > > > > > -$(DOMAIN).pot: Makefile $(POTFILES) $(POTFILES-pl) > > > $(POTFILES-ml) > > > +$(DOMAIN).pot: Makefile POTFILES $(POTFILES) POTFILES-pl > > > $(POTFILES_PL) POTFILES-ml $(POTFILES_ML)> > > > > > > rm -f $@-t > > > > > > if HAVE_OCAML_GETTEXT > > > > > > $(OCAML_GETTEXT) --action extract --extract-pot $@-t > > > $(POTFILES_ML) > > > > So I agree that $(POTFILES-pl) is definitely wrong. Not sure > > exactly > > what we were thinking about there ... > > > > But, won't the addition of the literal file names break separate > > compilation? In particular, $(POTFILES_PL) is supposed to be the > > correct path to the file POTFILES-pl (and correspondingly for the > > other files), so it shouldn't be necessary to list both > > POTFILES-pl > > and $(POTFILES_PL). This ^^ is bogus. I misunderstood the $(SED) in the macros. Obviously $(POTFILES) expands to the contents of the POTFILES file, ie. a list of filenames. > The idea behind the addition is make the libguestfs.pot generation > dependent on both the POTFILES files and the actual sources, so > either adding a new source to any POTFILES or changing any of the > listed sources in any POTFILES will trigger a new pot rebuild. Right, so I believe the first version (posted above) is correct, because $(srcdir)/.. is not necessary (because automake is supposed to add a VPATH for these builds). Which apparently are called "VPATH builds", not separate compilation.

If you agree, I will push the first version of the 2/3 patch.