Re: Small problem when building documentation with fo disabled

On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 20:54 +0200, Michèle Garoche wrote:
> Le 25 oct. 2004, à 19:57, Geert Stappers a écrit :
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:42:19PM +0200, Michèle Garoche wrote:
> >> Le 24 oct. 2004, à 11:41, Geert Stappers a écrit :
> >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 10:41:58AM +0200, Michèle Garoche wrote:
> >   <snip/>
> >>>> There are warnings for all fo_xxx, should not be a conditional here 
> >>>> to
> >>>> build or not with libfo, but still have the whole documentation 
> >>>> built
> >>>> (in case gtk-doc is enabled)?
> >>>
> >>> IIRC fo_xxx were recently dropped.
> >>> If so: drop fo_xxx from the gtk-doc definition files.
> >> OK, I'll do it, I was not sure, it has to be done.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Michèle
> >>>> <http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>
> >>>
> >>> Geert Stappers
> >>> (sorry for not build gtk-doc the last month)
> >> Don't worry I built it every day there is a change, so I'll see if
> >> something changes.
> >
> > Let us know when you need upstream changes.
> Oh, yes, of course, as usual.
> 
> For the moment, I wait for the committing of fr.po as I sent it, then I 
> will rebuild and tell you if something is wrong or what needs to be 
> changed regarding the doc. And finally I will send a new fr.po once the 
> first one (with no patch at all) would have reached anonymous cvs.

Sorry, but I'm now thoroughly confused... which file if any should be
committed?

> 
> Michèle
> <http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Conglomerate-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.copyleft.no/mailman/listinfo/conglomerate-devel