On 3/16/17 10:21 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 3/15/17 8:59 AM, Jan Tulak wrote:
>>> Change subopt_param.conflicts from array of integers into array of structures.
>>> This prepares the ground for more universal conflict detection in future
>>> patches.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Tulak <jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 243 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+), 114 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
>>> index 5e15fee2..c9861409 100644
>>> --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
>>> +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
>>> @@ -93,8 +93,16 @@ unsigned int sectorsize;
>>> *
>>> * conflicts MANDATORY
>>> * If your subopt is in a conflict with some other option, specify it.
>>> - * Accepts the .index values of the conflicting subopts and the last
>>> - * member of this list has to be LAST_CONFLICT.
>>> + * Accepts the .index values of the conflicting subopt as .opt (e.g. OPT_D)
>>> + * and .subopt (e.g. D_FILE). If .test_values is true, then the conflict
>>> + * is raised only when the "remote" suboption .value is equal to
>>> + * .invalid_value field and the "current" suboption has .value equal to
>>> + * .at_value.
>>> + * If .test_values is false, a conflict is raised when the suboption appears
>>> + * on the CLI, no matter its value. The field .message contains an optional
>>> + * explanatory string for the user. This string can't be translated here,
>>> + * so it has to be enveloped with _() when printed.
>>
>> You also still need to mark each string initializer you added in the array
>> in patch 08 with N_(" ... ") or gettext won't know about it.
>> (I think that's the right way to go about it)
>>
>> -Eric
>
> See patch 06, the last chunk. It adds printing of the error with
> "_(conflict->message)".
yes, but nothing tags the actual conflict strings as needing translation.
https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Special-cases.html#Special-cases
might help.
note that we use macros - N_() is gettext_noop(), and _() is gettext()
> So if C gettext is a function evaluated on the run and not a macro
> evaluated on the compile time, then it should be ok. (And everywhere I
> looked, I saw it mentioned as a function... Although I admit I didn't
> tested it.)
Well, give it a test. If it works, fine, but I do not see these strings
ending up in the .pot file so I'm skeptical.
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
