Hi Bruno, Paul,
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Regarding gettext, there is usually no functional difference between .mo
> files generated by msgfmt 0.11 and those generated by msgfmt 0.18.1.1.
> So it's probably not worth mentioning.
For users who are trying to debug a bison build pr
On 07/31/10 07:46, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> For example, the user
> might want to know what version of autoconf, automake, flex, or gnulib was
> used to bootstrap bison, but I'm fairly confident that most people do not
> care what version of Bourne shell or coreutils I happened to use during
> bo
Joel,
> It sounds like you are giving me advice on whether to include gettext in
> gnulib_modules in bootstrap.conf.
Indeed, I misunderstood your question.
> I am looking for some guideline on how to determine whether
> it's helpful to list any given tool and its version in bison release
> a
Hi Bruno,
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > On the bison mailing lists, it was recently suggested that bison should
> > include gettext in bootstrap-tools in cfg.mk. That sounds reasonable to
> > me, but I see that coreutils and m4 don't do this.
>
> T
Hi Joel,
> On the bison mailing lists, it was recently suggested that bison should
> include gettext in bootstrap-tools in cfg.mk. That sounds reasonable to
> me, but I see that coreutils and m4 don't do this.
The gnulib 'gettext' module is a substitute for part
Hi,
On the bison mailing lists, it was recently suggested that bison should
include gettext in bootstrap-tools in cfg.mk. That sounds reasonable to
me, but I see that coreutils and m4 don't do this. Is there any general
rule of thumb about which tools are significant enough to be l
