[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: base, essential, core - important terminology question. (fwd)



 a kérdés és az 1. válasz (sorry, nem erős az angolom):

To: SmartList <debian-i18n@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: base, essential, core - important terminology question.
Resent-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:37:44 -0600 (CST)
Resent-From: debian-i18n@lists.debian.org


On 26/02/2006, at 3:26 AM, SZERVĂ?C Attila wrote:
>
>  These terms are hard for my team during the translation.
>
>  We can't find clear policies! I can't see the exact relations :
>
>  Base system - package: various priority & variuos sections: e.g.
>                Required/base Important/admin Standard/libs even Extra
>                packages
>
>  Core packages - What is the difference ? What is `Core' exactly ? I
>                can't translate as `most_important, standard or base'
>                packages 'cause `Important' & `Standard' are priorities
>                (see above), `Base' is a section.
>
>  Essential packages - a new term again (mainly used in higher pm's -
>                aptitude for example) - What is the difference ?
> What is
>                `Essential' exactly ? I can't translate as
> `most_important,
>                standard, base or core' packages 'cause `Important' &
>                `Standard' are priorities (see above), `Base' is a
> section
>                & `core package' is undefined term in other tools.
>
>  I think these (&others) are wrongly mixed, imperfectly_defined terms
> FUD-ding users (so translators too), isn't it?
>
>  Can anyone help to solve this problem?

I agree with you, these terms are difficult to distinguish.

My language has separate translations for these three terms, but they
are still so similar: how does the user distinguish them? If s/he
needs to prioritize, which packages are the most important?

 _________________________________________________________________________

from Clytie (vi-VN, Vietnamese free-software translation team / nhĂłm
Vi�t hóa phần m�m t᝹ do)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/vi-VN



Reply to: