Re: Why isn't apt internationalized?
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Michael Piefel wrote:
> Does that mean that if you get a patch which satisfies your needs you'd
> be willing to include it quickly? That would be nice. Let me utter a few
> thoughts, nothing particularly well thought-through:
Probably, most of the code now has the necessary mark up to make the patch
fairly simple - it should amount to 1 new header file and a bunch of
additional #include's
> - The most important thing to have have translated messages in the apt
> suite is apt-get; this is what almost everyone will face quite often.
Many of the important error messages people see come from within the
library, it is important that have translations as well.
> - In a reasonable well-behaved environment it is very easy to make a
> program use translated messages; in Debian, the C library offers a
> known-to-be-good gettext implementation.
Yes, I do not want an integrated gettext or the like, I don't especailly
care about translations on systems that do not have gettext globally
available.
> - Makes all command line utilities use translations,
> - Employs autoconf to find gettext.
The patch needs to translate and set the correct domain (?) for the
library, and the autoconf patch needs to advoid having all .cc files
depend on config.h
Send me what you have and I'll look it over.. Please diff against CVS.
Thanks,
Jason
Reply to: