GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 347607
configure is missing a "test".. and it complains about missing po/POTFILES.in
Last modified: 2018-06-29 21:09:51 UTC
the configure script is missing a 'test', which causes improper behavior. It also complains (in SVN) about po/POTFILES.in missing. This was fixed in trunk in r14497 and r14500
From IRC: <chris> Can you explain how someone could end up with no POTFILES.in? <warlord> svn checkout <chris> and then what do they do? <warlord> configure wants to see it, complains that it doesn't exist, but then moves on.. Then during "make" POTFILES.in gets created.. <chris> I'd say just backport the missing "test" part, then. <chris> It all looks correct, but just doesn't seem like it's worth backporting. <warlord> unfortunately the "missing 'test'" changeset also adds cruft to configure about POTFILES.in.. <warlord> i.e., +AC_MSG_NOTICE([Ignore error message "./po/POTFILES.in: No such file or directory." if it occurrs.]) <chris> I mean just the one line. <warlord> so you mean just backport this one part of the changeset: <warlord> - if x${want_ofx} = xyes ; then <warlord> + if test x${want_ofx} = xyes ; then <warlord> ???? <chris> ys. <chris> er, yes. <warlord> hmm.. <warlord> that DOES violate the "only backport changesets" rule... <warlord> but... <warlord> *shrugs* <chris> I would suggest to just make commit it to 2.0, but to follow your rules, you would create a bugfix branch, commit the one liner, and then merge. <warlord> I think this particular change is trivial enough I can just pull it back by hand, provided we're "all" in agreement that it's okay for that change. <warlord> I'm fine with just hand-applying that change to 2.0, if you are. <warlord> (it's obviously a "correct" change) <chris> go for it. <warlord> Okay.
This one change has been pulled into the 2.0 branch in r14510.
GnuCash bug tracking has moved to a new Bugzilla host. This bug has been copied to https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=347607. Please update any external references or bookmarks.