On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:17:09AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > > So, can you explain for me why "the POT file needs a header to be > > imported properly"? Imported into what? > > Rosetta so far, but it is basically the same if you start a new > translation manually: a .po file needs a correct header (dates and > encoding are essential, author etc. are nice to have), and giving > users a template to fill out makes life easier for them.
I see. > > Its not a translation, so on its own is uninteresting... > > The important thing about a .pot is that the msgid's are current. As > soon as you change a string, or add a Debian specific string, the > change must be reflected in the .pot, so that tools for translation > pick up the change. Understood. > > I can imagine the need to import the > > .po files into something, but don't understand why the .pot file > > would be... and, as mentioned before, the .po files have headers > > already. > > .po files can have old, obsolete, and missing translations. Only the > POT file is guraranteed to have a current set of msgid's (or, rather, > we fixed packages so that this assertion became true). Indeed. > P.S. BTW, if you are reluctant to make this change, we can carry the > patch in Ubuntu with relatively little effort. It just stops us from > just using the Debian package as-is (and makes Rosetta less useful for > Debian). Nope, not relucatant - just want to understand the issues first. I'll get something merged soon. And I wont bother with the separate header thing, that was just me not remembering how the process all works. :) Thanks for explaining how y'all use this for me, seems a reasonable change to make - I'll do so as soon as I get a spare minute. cheers. -- Nathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
