On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:14:55 -0400, David Prévot wrote: > Le 04/11/2010 09:19, Julien Cristau a écrit : > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:03:06 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > That's not a regression, but: > > > > + msgid "pipe failed" > > +-msgstr "Echec du tube" > > ++msgstr "échec du tube" > > > > I don't think that translation is correct, it's about a pipe(2) system > > call failure, pipe shouldn't be translated here IMO. > > Thanks for your concern, I'll have to double check, thus > debian-l10n-french CCd, but I do think that “tube” is the usual > translation in this case (maybe “échec de la création du tube” should be > more accurate), as it is also stated in our “lexique” [0]: > "échec de la création du tube" would make sense to me, as would "échec de pipe()". > $ apropos pipe > pipe (2) - Créer un tube > [...] > > Please note that the last translator declared of this page is someone > trustworthy: > > Julien Cristau et l'équipe francophone de traduction de Debian (2006-2009). > > > Translating > > "pipeline" by "conduite" also doesn't really sound like an improvement, > > but maybe that's just me. > > I used the same vocabulary than the one used in bash(1) (I updated it > recently, but “conduite” was already there), it seemed more consistent, > I'm note sure that pipeline means anything to a non-English listener > anyway. I would be glad to gather more opinion about this one, add a > word to our “lexique” [0] if we agree on something, and update the > translation accordingly. > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canalisation and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_%28informatique%29 suggest it does (or should, anyway). I've just never heard of a shell pipeline referred to as a "conduite" anywhere before. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature