Re: [PATCH] i18n: disable i18n for shell scripts if NO_GETTEXT defined

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

 



Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> ... We have, e.g., NO_MMAP, and I can set it to request
> that some alternative is used, even if I have a working mmap(). The option
> name "NO_GETTEXT" is in exactly the same spirit.
>
>> In the current approach we take for shell scripts, we cannot have "No i18n
>> whatsoever and messages are emit with printf and echo". We always have to
>> go through gettext/eval_gettext even though they may be an implementation
>> that does not do i18n at all.
>
> Just like we go through _() in C code, even though there may be an
> implementation that does not do i18n at all, right?

Yes, just like that. The small detail that _() can be #define'd out to
empty while gettext/eval_gettext cannot be made to be no-impact like that
does not really matter.

> In C, it is easy, in shell code it may be more involved.

Correct.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]