On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:28:58 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@sirena.org.uk> wrote: > > >From what I understand of your idea, you seem to think about > > translations mainly as updates. While it is one of the goals to > > enable translation-only updates, it is not quite obvious to me what > > your proposal has to offer in terms of splitting translations out > > of the debs, which is an explicit goal. Also, the proposal > > specifically aims at limiting the amount of data that the archive > > and apt have to handle. > > Surely translations can be modeled as updates to translationless .deb > files (ie, you have a .deb with no translations and then patch that > package to add the translations)? Why patch the package? Why not simply put a TDeb alongside the "translationless" Debian package? The internal layout of the TDeb is important to the overall usefulness of TDebs in general. Updates to the TDeb then simply replace the previous TDeb, leaving the .dsc and the rest of the (signed) Debian files completely unchanged. AFAICT it is not possible to "patch" a binary debian package - you lose all the benefit of signing the .dsc in the first place. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpPhYSJ5OJk4.pgp
Description: PGP signature