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

Re: debconf template translation



Nick Phillips wrote:
> Not when you take the full argument into account; textual data in packages
> is just that --- data. It really is logically separate from the code, as
> gettext helps show.

You may notice that debconf does a lot more sepration of text and code
than most programs.

However, the text and code are still very tightly bound. If they get out
of sync, the admin may see confusing or even dangerous things.

> * It's a potential PITA for maintainers; they should be able to choose whether
> to be involved in translation or not (clearly some feel strongly each way).

No, maintainer should be able to chooe between using a very simple and
well-nigh utomated system for manging the trnslations in their package,
or taking a more active hand. Any maintainer who does not realize that
any translation has the potential to break his package, and is not
willing to take responsibiliy for it just like any other bug in his
package, needs to reexamine his commitmnt to the project. Any maintiner
who *does* realize this will not want third parties messing with it out
side of his control. He'll want to at least eyeball all new translations
before they go in, even if he doesn't know the language. He'll want to
be able to remove a translation or fix a typo when he gets an urgent bug
report from a user.

> * We should not be requiring all systems (or even archives) to install 20 or
> more (just a guess) times the amount of textual data that most will need. For
> some packages this will be significant, for others not.

This is the only real concern (or more exactly in the long term, having
to download all those translations and then probably throw them away as
your system is not configured to install them).

> * It fits the standard UNIX way of doing things (avoiding monoliths).

Monoliths? So you think that we should have one packge for every file on
the system? 

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: pgpx5MardjaOB.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: