Re: ITP: gettext-base
> > > > So, if there are not objections, sections and priorities will be like
> > > > this:
> > > >
> > > > gettext-base base standard
> > > > gettext devel optional
> >
> > No objections from me. Sounds fine. As a harder project (of whose
> > worth I am uncertain): figure out how much more space could be saved
> > by splitting the catalogs as well.
>
> If the current scheme is well enough for you, please don't think of
> splitting the catalogs. It will create additional problems on the
> translators's side.
No, it won't. I wouldn't dream of having more than one translation
file, but there will be a Perl script or similar which will automate
the splitting of the catalog file. My idea is to create
gettext-base.{po,mo} files which contain only those messages needed by
/usr/bin/gettext itself. The main gettext.{po,mo} files will continue
to contain everything. Should be very easy to implement. The only
thing which needs thinking about carefully is how to make sure that
gettext finds the catalog. gettextp.c could be modified to read:
/* Set the text message domain. */
bindtextdomain (PACKAGE_BASE, LOCALEDIR);
textdomain (PACKAGE_BASE);
and then a configure-time option could select whether to have
PACKAGE_BASE equal to ${PACKAGE} or equal to "${PACKAGE}-base". In
the latter case, both catalogs would be needed in order to make
gettext and xgettext (say) both work.
A more dangerous technique would be to have the gettext-base package
have only the reduced catalogs. They would then be diverted by the
full catalogs found in the gettext package. I'm not sure I like this
solution either. Besides anything else, it's too Debian-centric.
I'm open to suggestions.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Reply to: