From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65AEC07E96 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 19:19:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AAD461C91 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 19:19:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231925AbhGFTW2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:22:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:50959 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231857AbhGFTW2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:22:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C93148C77; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:19:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=cGv2k02NnPZ0fk37ONXYBb0M0QftqSOZoCqvT2 1wqHU=; b=EIoS/61BnxnmYzIgp5CWDfYM/5D6S9F9RZJV1VyFFFmbEjUTihJbBe FMQJZLnL5/L3AdzOKF4O8x/8il0wVWlh/upkbjhP0f5msD4gOZzx5O45tkNsZLBE 0Dra6lqrUTo5cN2XwS6KiM4xlqQ9g1FksfwMqGa56etgRbrWyTL1w= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD4E148C76; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:19:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.3.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2577148C75; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:19:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Dennis Ameling via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Johannes Schindelin , Dennis Ameling Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] ci(vs-build): build with NO_GETTEXT References: <2c4cd9dd1c8d966c8df0349bb820449ae1290793.1625439315.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:19:45 -0700 In-Reply-To: <2c4cd9dd1c8d966c8df0349bb820449ae1290793.1625439315.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (Dennis Ameling via GitGitGadget's message of "Sun, 04 Jul 2021 22:55:13 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2046A1E2-DE8F-11EB-B786-FA9E2DDBB1FC-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Dennis Ameling via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Dennis Ameling > > We already build Git for Windows with `NO_GETTEXT` when compiling with > GCC. Let's do the same with Visual C, too. > > Note that we do not technically _need_ to pass `NO_GETTEXT` explicitly > in that `make artifacts-tar` invocation because we do this while `MSVC` > is set (which will set `uname_S := Windows`, which in turn will set > `NO_GETTEXT = YesPlease`). But it is definitely nicer to be explicit > here. In other words, is this a no-op but makes the recipe more readable?