On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 09:21:52PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> - Do a libc change be need? > > > > Not required if we allow tdebs to overwrite files of the base packages. > > I prefer to change libc to avoid overwrite files. But it's my POV. The libc change only makes it possible for you to provide updated *gettext* translations. It does not, in any way, provide you a way to update documents (manpages, /usr/share/doc/ stuff) or data. For example of the later, t ake a look at the data files distributed in the kde-i18n-XX packages. It includes (localised): OGG, html, and png files (and the MO binary files). This does not mean that I'm proposing that tdebs should include the same files as in the base packages, actually, my proposal (still needs to be written in the wiki) was based on the fact that the binary (program) packages did *not* include the translation data since (on package build) this data was extracted from the .deb packages and moved over to other (let's say .tdeb) packages that the maintainer would upload to the archive. Maintainers (or translation coordinations), either for a translation-update only release in the sid or in the stable branch would upload updated .tdebs (along with some updaetd source files, which is the tricky part). Let's see if I have time to write down the approach I designed at Extremadura so you guys can spot all the problems in it :) Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature