[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: Signed packages and translations

> > The translation archive can contain a "control" and a "templates" file.
> > These files have much the same format as the corresponding files from the
> > control.tar.gz file but with the exception that they contain only the
> > identifiers ("Package: xyz" for "control" and "Template: foo/bar" for
> > "templates") and the translated "Description-ll_CC:" field. These files are
> > merged by dpkg-deb when extracting the package.

> (btw: in the template file we have more translateable tags)

Okay, will be fixed in the next version.

> I like this all, but we have the problem with outdated translations. 

Yes, that's why I want these files to be automatically added from the
database: The database still contains the untranslated strings, so we can
check whether the translations are up to date. If the checking were performed
on the end user's machine, you would ship the unstranslated strings
n+1 times, with n being the number of translations, and if the
translation was no longer up to date, the end user's box would throw
them away.

With my proposal, a .deb file would never contain an outdated
translation unless the maintainer forced it.

> A to written script (dh_i10ndesc) include the translation only in the
> deb, if the orignal description from the po file comform with the
> description in the controll file. With this we don't have outdate
> descriptions in the deb. 

This still has the problem that the maintainer has to take some action
to get the translation into the .deb, which we wanted to avoid. But we
might need to take an approach like that, see my next mail.

> The user can install a desc-trans-XX.deb and have with this deb a
> local override file.

I don't see the point in this. Why would the user want to override
translated descriptions?

> katie has all informations. it has the descriptions from the packages,
> the translations from the packages and maybe one/some override files
> with traslations. It can make Packages-XX files. But I don't like
> this. 

> IMHO better is this: 
> katie make the normal Packages file and some Descriptions-XX files.
> With only Package: and Description-XX: tags. Apt can download the
> Packages file like normal and/or on/some Descriptions file(s). 

This makes sense once people want to have the descriptions of
uninstalled packages in multiple (read: more than one language on one
box) languages, since it helps avoid some confusion with packages of the
same name and version being available from multiple sources.

> The user can config what languages he will support. Apt can use this
> Descriptions files itself or (IMHO) better make a po file with the
> Packages and Description file and make with this a mo file. And use
> the normal dgettext. With this we don't use the desc-trans-XX.deb in
> real. 

What is the point in using gettext then? If you generate the .po file
from two different sources (original and translation without the
original text), the translation cannot be out of date.


Reply to: