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

Re: new proposal: Translating Debian packages' descriptions



On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:24:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know enough about gettext - am I assuming correctly that in
> > the .mo file, the English translation is replaced with a checksum or
> > similar, so you do not need to store the complete English translation?
> 
> Gettext normally uses the entire untranslated string as the key in the .mo
> file.  This has many advantages when dealing with translation of strings in
> programs, where the untranslated string is actually present in the program
> source, and this is a big reason the GNU project favors gettext over catgets
> systems found on other Unices.  It makes less sense in the case of package
> descriptions, however, because we're effectively doing two lookups -- first to
> find the English description in Packages.gz using the package name and version
> as a key, then to find the translated description in the .mo file using the
> English description as a key.

yes, you must two lookups. First in the package db (normal in the
menory) and (if LANG is set) make a second lookup with gettext.

But this not a big problem, or is there a problem?

If you put the translated text only in the db, and you don't use the
english text as key (like gettext) you get maybe outdated translation.

And better a untranslated text than a wrong translation.

> > For the binary package, I don't know... - Gnome and KDE do include all
> > translations, and I think it's easier to handle. Additionally, disc
> > space is really cheap these days, so maybe it would be better just to
> > include all the descriptions, too.
> 
> I think it does belong in the binary package; if not, I'm not sure why we
> would want it in the source package at all.  I believe translated descriptions
> have just as much reason for inclusion in the binary package's control file
> (or in a functional equivalent) as the rest of the informational stuff that's
> in there.
> 
> If translated Description: fields in binary packages are not important, then
> why do we currently have the untranslated Description: in the control file?

yes, If we add the translation in the source, we should also add it in
the normal deb.

Gruss
Grisu
-- 
Michael Bramer  -  a Debian Linux Developer http://www.debian.org
PGP: finger grisu@db.debian.org  -- Linux Sysadmin   -- Use Debian Linux
"Nicht geschehene Taten ziehen oft einen erstaunlichen Mangel an Folgen 
 nach sich."             --   S.J. Lec

Attachment: pgpw8uwrtO8OS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: