Hi Martin, Le 24/06/2015 16:40, Martin Quinson a écrit : > On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:34:30PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote: >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 05:14:20PM -0400, David Prévot wrote: >>> >>> Even if disruptive changes in the gettext/po4a toolchain (and underlined >>> Perl handling) are always painful […], with my Debian packager >>> hat on, I’d say that now (early in the development cycle) is exactly the >>> right moment to make such change if it’s an improvement worthing the >>> disruption. >> >> About this change, now. My current feeling is that it should be an >> optional behavior. It is very possible to pass options to the PO4A >> modules, so that users may choose how to handle tbl macros. David, do >> you think that it would do the trick? > > Ok. I found some time to dig into this issue, and implemented an > option to choose between the old and new behavior. But I'm not sure I > want to commit it. Robert's change is a great improvement. […] > Who on the earth would choose the second version?
I, for one, already moved the PO files from manpages-fr-extra to cope
with the new behavior and have no intent to move backward. On the other
hand, I haven’t dealt with perkamon for a while, where there might be a
huge work to deal with (that can hopefully be mostly automatized as
partly documented earlier [0]). Other projects may have another view on
that (I can only think of those two projects using po4a for dealing with
a big amount of manpages, but I only know those two from the narrow view
of a French translator who happen to [have] be[en] involved).
0: https://bugs.debian.org/786525#20
> I think, David, that
> we have here what you call an improvement worthing the disruption. Do
> you agree, or would you insist on having an option?
Nobody else following up on that bug report might be a sign that having
an opt-out is not really worth it. On the other hand, I have no idea if
the latest po4a version is already widely spread among its users.
Regards
David
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
