* general test with `indexpages` enabled: **not OK**
* general test with `po_link_to=default` with `userdirs` enabled: **OK**
* general test with `po_link_to=default` with `userdirs` disabled: **OK**
+
+Duplicate %links ?
+------------------
+
+I notice code in the scan hook that seems to assume
+that %links will accumulate duplicate links for a page.
+That used to be so, but the bug was fixed. Does this mean
+that po might be replacing the only link on a page, in error?
+--[[Joey]]
+
+> It would replace it. The only problematic case is when another
+> plugin has its own reasons, in its `scan` hook, to add a page
+> that is already there to `$links{$page}`. This other plugin's
+> effect might then be changed by po's `scan` hook... which could
+> be either good (better overall l10n) or bad (break the other
+> plugin's goal). --[[intrigeri]]
+
+>> Right.. well, the cases where links are added is very small.
+>> Grepping for `add_link`, it's just done by link, camelcase, meta, and
+>> tag. All of these are supposed to work just link regular links
+>> so I'd think that is ok. We could probably remove the currently scary
+>> comment about only wanting to change the first link. --[[Joey]]
+
+>>> Commit 3c2bffe21b91684 in my po branch does this. --[[intrigeri]]
+>>>> Cherry-picked --[[Joey]]