Steve Langasek [2013-05-24 23:18 -0000]:
> If the .pot has not changed, a .po update will be a null merge and generate
> idempotent .mo output on all builds.
That's right, but most build systems don't automatically update .po
files (and rightly so, as that's rather pointless); also,
pkgbinarymangler works after the upstream build system, so changing
the .pot won't invoke any "make" rules any more.
> But that implies having to change the library packages which *don't* use a
> -common to work around the behavior of pkgbinarymangler, which I don't think
> is what we want.
This can only potentially affect the handful of packages which are
blacklisted from stripping (dpkg, apt, debconf-i18n, update-notifier,
and some stragglers). I don't think we ever had problems with any of
them, and together with the above (.pot build happens after upstream
build) it seems to me we are fairly safe here?
Steve Langasek [2013-05-24 23:18 -0000]:
> If the .pot has not changed, a .po update will be a null merge and generate
> idempotent .mo output on all builds.
That's right, but most build systems don't automatically update .po
files (and rightly so, as that's rather pointless); also,
pkgbinarymangler works after the upstream build system, so changing
the .pot won't invoke any "make" rules any more.
> But that implies having to change the library packages which *don't* use a
> -common to work around the behavior of pkgbinarymangler, which I don't think
> is what we want.
This can only potentially affect the handful of packages which are
blacklisted from stripping (dpkg, apt, debconf-i18n, update-notifier,
and some stragglers). I don't think we ever had problems with any of
them, and together with the above (.pot build happens after upstream
build) it seems to me we are fairly safe here?