Re: Bug#129294: gcc-2.95: cannot read translated messages
At Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:12:52 +0100,
Martin v. Loewis <martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:
>
> > Since we will have to prepare Woody's release soon, I think
> > the best way is to disable translation just now tempolarily
> > and then start the investigation of this problem.
>
> I recommend the same thing. Gettext support in gcc 2.95 is known not
> to work; the GCC maintainers even claim that it is known not work in
> gcc 3.0, and that you need atleast gcc 3.1 for proper gettext support
> in GCC.
That's right. I use gcc with debian 2.95, debian 3.0, and cvs 3.1, and
I feel we should work with translation issue for 3.x.
> > Note that this problem is fixed in gcc-3.0 but I think
> > gcc-2.95 is important because it is the main C compiler
> > for Woody.
>
> While the compiler itself is important, I wonder how important
> translated messages in that release are. Most gcc users don't expect
> them, so they will be rather annoyed if something breaks because of
> the catalogs (e.g. post-processors of gcc output have already been
> observed to break).
Yes. So I think removing LC_MESSAGES from gcc-2.95 is the best way not
to break them.
> Also, I guess none of the catalogs has been peer-reviewed. Given that
> GCC is complex matter, it is likely that there are translation errors
> that will confuse users.
>
> Furthermore, the gcc 2.95 catalog contains 1000-something messages,
> whereas the 3.x catalogs contain over 4000 messages. So many of the
> messages are not marked in 2.95; users will get mixed output from gcc
> if the catalogs are used.
No, please look at translation project page.
Many messages are already translated (!).
However, as you wrote, the quality of this message are not obvious.
We should review these catalogs...
> Because of these obstacles, I'd recommend to delay inclusion of the
> catalogs for the 3.x series (starting with 3.0). Any remaining
> problems might then be solved by back-porting changes from 3.1; this
> also gives translators more time to review their translations.
I fully agree.
-- gotom
Reply to: