Re: Packaging very large i18n material
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
El Lunes 9 de Junio de 2003 14:38, escribiste:
> Hi. :)
>
> > we already discussed this sometime ago
>
> Though not with any resolution.
>
> > and since then there are koffice-i18n-xx packages....
>
> Not on the debian servers.
>
> > apt-cache show koffice-i18n-es
> > Package: koffice-i18n-es
>
> ...
>
> > Maintainer: Ralf Nolden <nolden@kde.org>
>
> ...
>
> > Version: 1.2.1-0woody2
>
> These are Ralf's backports of KDE3 and related material to woody.
> Whilst I appreciate Ralf's work, I would like to get wider input on this
> issue from other debian developers as well as users before uploading to
> the official debian archives.
OK, I understand.
>
> One of the main reasons for starting this thread is to see if there is
> any strong reaction from other debian developers to the addition of 37 new
> i18n packages. As I mentioned earlier, if every software packager uses
> this solution then we have chaos.
>
> > (Discussing merging koffice i18n materials into kde-i18n-lang)
>
> ...
>
> > No, that spoils the translations from the translation teams due to the
> > different release cycles between KDE and KDE.
>
> How does this spoil the translations? I don't see what you're saying here.
>
Well, perhaps I should be more exact, It spoils translations because it
misses the work done by the translators of KOffice and because translations
may not corresponds to the messages of the real applications. If you include
koffice translations in kde-i18n-xx you will only get the translation done by
the KDE release time and it may well happen that the translator has not ended
his work, because he/she plans translations taking into account KOffice
freeze, or just that the translated PO file corresponds to a POT updated by
KDE release time, while the KOffice application may have a different POT.
...mmm... I bit confusing ?.
>
> How does this spoil the translations? I don't see what you're saying here.
>
> > option 4 (should not be even considered).
>
> Which is why I've restarted this thread, since option 4 is unfortunately
> the status quo.
Certainly,
Thanks
>
> Ben. :)
regards,
Pablo de Vicente.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+5IWlSItUpHl6kJERAigHAKCTt4efO5zgjvCG53aY5LzOsha5DwCg0uxt
hYoCGO5GmVaJNYZQcgQo2cs=
=Ooyz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: