On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:05:25PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:51:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - an output mecanism, including the fallback to original if the translation
> > is outdated. You have either to rewrite msgfmt to do this job at previous
> > step, or design a new function in dpkg, apt, grep-dctrl, and all programm
> > using the translated descriptions.
>
> The end-user tools would never have to deal with outdated translations if the
> ".mo" file is assembled ahead of time in a central location. Match up the
> translations, insert them into the distilled .po file using the package
> name/version as the key, and you're done.
one point:
I get the package-1.2 from 'commercial german distributor' with german
translation. And I watch (with apt-cache show) the description
package-1.2.1 from security.debian.org?
I don't see the german description...
other point:
I have a gnome-base-1.2 from HelixCode and show the description from
gnome-base-1.2 from debian... But the description from both packages
is not the same....
(I know our package management don't support this case, but we have
this case in real (maybe)...)
next point:
You have in your apt-source some sources. Like a older CD-Rom with
2.1 and 2.2_r0, a uptodate 2.2_r3 from ftp.debian.org, testing and
sid from http.debian.org.
With this you have alle descriptions many times in the .mo file.
(like package-0.9 from 2.1, package-1.4 from 2.2_r0, package-1.4.1
from 2.2_r3 and package-1.5 from testing and sid...)
And with the pin feature of apt, more and more people have more
sources in sources.list...
> > If you change any tool of the gettext mechanism, you lost advantages from
> > the translator point of view, like compendium, containing standard
> > translations for reuse, or user-friendly tools like kbabel for translating,
> > (including ispell possibility, which is implemented in kbabel, and some
> > others)
>
> I'm not suggesting replacing the format that translators will work with. I'm
> just disagreeing that standard .mo files are the best solution to be
> integrated into dpkg and apt.
...
> More direct lookups. Smaller .po files. Better integration with existing
> tools, instead of grafting a new arm onto our existing /var/lib/dpkg
> structure.
Yes, .mo files are not the best thing. this is your point and you are
right.
But this is a other problem and we can solve this problem parallel.
I propose this:
- use (a unchanged) gettext now in dpkg and get the thing rolling.
- change the gettext to use a optional 'md5sum-like' thing for a
lookups.
(save the translation with the md5sum of the orignal text as key)
This .mo files can use all programmes with a lot of text and have the
advantages of this.
Please don't reinvent the wheel, improve the old wheel and make it
chubbier.
Gruss
Grisu
--
Michael Bramer - a Debian Linux Developer http://www.debian.org
PGP: finger grisu@db.debian.org -- Linux Sysadmin -- Use Debian Linux
"Ziemlich viele Firmen, die alle kein Linux benutzen, würden nach Abschaltung
der Linux-Rechner erst mal ins Schwimmen kommen." -- Matthias Peick
Attachment:
pgp8ELGxvU4_k.pgp
Description: PGP signature