Hello, the truth is that the development of po4a is kinda stopped since a few years. We do the basic maintainance, like reviewing and applying proposed patches (with some delays), but I don't manage to devote any time to the new wanted features myself. I'm sorry about that, but this is a fact.
As a result, I think that you should develop this module yourself. I understand that Perl will make your brain burn as a Ruby programmer, but at the end, developping a new module for po4a is very easy. And I can guide you in this process if you go that way. Check the doc on writing a new module, here: man Locale::Po4a::TransTractor I think that this is a good idea to keep both the upstream list and the debian bug in CC while discussing it. It will ensure both a good diffusion and a good archiving of the discussions. Good luck, Mt. On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:35:21PM +0200, Francesco Poli (wintermute) wrote: > Package: po4a > Version: 0.47-2 > Severity: wishlist > > Hello and thanks for developing po4a. > > As discussed on the po4a-devel mailing list [1], it would be great > if po4a supported the Ruby document format [2]. > > [1] https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/po4a-devel/2016-June/002364.html > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Document_format > > Could you please implement support for it in an appropriate module, > so that I could, for instance, do something like: > > $ po4a-gettextize -f rd -m apt-listbugs -p doc-apt-listbugs.pot > > The Ruby document format is processed by package rdtool (among other > possible tools) and is described in its documentation [3]. > > [3] https://github.com/uwabami/rdtool/blob/master/doc/rd-draft.rd > > I hope implementing this additional module is not too hard. > Please let me know. > > Thanks a lot for your time! > Bye. > -- Reject: Figure 3 is unclear. -- Bastard Reviewer From Hell
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
