Re: splitting manpages-nl (and perhaps other manpages translations)
Thanks for the reactions.
OK, the general opinion seems to be it's better to keep
manpages-nl unsplit. I can't resist to do one other shot at pleaing
for the cause of splitting. So here it is.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 12:51:46PM +0100, Ivo Timmermans wrote:
> Joost van Baal wrote:
> > fileutils suggests manpages-fileutils-translation
> > manpages-nl-fileutils provides manpages-fileutils-translation
> > manpages-de-fileutils provides manpages-fileutils-translation
> Ideally, the Dutch (and other) manpages should be distributed together
> with the upstream sources. Fileutils for example should install its
> translated manpages itself.
I doubt wether maintainers are willing to distribute translations
in every possibe language themselves. For many small programs,
documentation could become a lot bigger than the actual program.
And then, I believe users who stick with installing raw tarballs,
would be happier to download just the program's tarball and
documentation in a language of their choice, than one big tarball
containing _all_ documentation.
> Although you probably need to waive the copyrights on these manpages
> to the FSF, which would make fileutils (and other GNU software) a
> tougher target.
Indeed. Even when we come to agree translated manpages should
get distributed together with upstream source, splitting now
makes it easier to glue the allready chopped of pieces to
> I'm not sure how this issue should be dealt with. How do other
> languages do this? I can remember having seen manpages-ja and
> manpages-ja-dev alongside xmanpages-ja. Three monolithic packages.
Most translated manpages packages consist of one big blob. Some
are split in manpages-lang and manpages-lang-dev.
> I think that you shouldn't split the package.
Why not? I didn't find an argument against it in your mail.
I could have misinterpreted it though.
Michael Neuffer wrote splitting it is overkill. He didn't say
why he feels like that, though...
Any more thoughts on it?