pacman/scripts/po/meson.build

i18n.gettext(
  'pacman-scripts',
  args : [
    '--directory=@0@'.format(meson.current_source_dir()),
    '--msgid-bugs-address=http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=3',
    '--copyright-holder="Pacman Development Team <pacman-dev@archlinux.org>"',
    '--language', 'shell',

    '--keyword=_',
    '--flag=_:1:c-format',

    '--keyword=_n:1,2',
    '--flag=_n:1:c-format',
    '--flag=_n:2:c-format',
  ])
Add meson.build files to build with meson Provide both build systems in parallel for now, to ensure that we work out all the differences between the two. Some time from now, we'll give up on autotools. Meson tends to be faster and probably easier to read/maintain. On my machine, the full meson configure+build+install takes a little under half as long as a similar autotools-based invocation. Building with meson is a two step process. First, configure the build: meson build Then, compile the project: ninja -C build There's some mild differences in functionality between meson and autotools. specifically: 1) No singular update-po target. meson only generates individual update-po targets for each textdomain (of which we have 3). To make this easier, there's a build-aux/update-po script which finds all update-po targets and runs them. 2) No 'make dist' equivalent. Just run 'git archive' to generate a suitable tarball for distribution. 2018-07-07 10:29:48 -04:00			`i18n.gettext(`
			`'pacman-scripts',`
			`args : [`
			`'--directory=@0@'.format(meson.current_source_dir()),`
			`'--msgid-bugs-address=http://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=3',`
			`'--copyright-holder="Pacman Development Team <pacman-dev@archlinux.org>"',`
			`'--language', 'shell',`

			`'--keyword=_',`
			`'--flag=_:1:c-format',`

			`'--keyword=_n:1,2',`
			`'--flag=_n:1:c-format',`
			`'--flag=_n:2:c-format',`
			`])`