On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 01:26:07PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > > The end-user tools would never have to deal with outdated translations if
> > > the
> > > ".mo" file is assembled ahead of time in a central location. Match up the
> > > translations
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > The end-user tools would never have to deal with outdated translations if
> > the
> > ".mo" file is assembled ahead of time in a central location. Match up the
> > translations, insert them into the distilled .po file using the package
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:05:25PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:51:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - an output mecanism, including the fallback to original if the translation
> >is outdated. You have either to re
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Martin Quinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:51:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Only if the implementation is poor. The accuracy of a translation can be
> > verified in the process of assembling the file that is to be made available
> > to
> > user machines (whe
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:51:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:24:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > I don't know enough about gettext - am I assuming correctly that in
> > > > the .mo file, the English translatio
Le Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 02:48:06PM -0400, Joey Hess écrivait:
> Maybe you missed my mail in which I stated that now that someone had
> bothered to tell me this was a problem, I could fix in it about oh, 10
> minutes.
>
> The only reason I have not yet is that debconf is currently frozen,
> along w
Martin Quinson wrote:
> Ouch ! As translator, I can promise you that if Joey Hess had removed all my
> translation just because he added 'gnome' to the list of choices, he would
> had to search out another french translator !
Maybe I'd better start looking, because:
> PS: this perticular problem
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Also, I like that we use the gettext mechanism because at least we
> have no translated description when it has been updated instead of
> an outdated description. Better have a correct english description
> than a wrong translated one. This problem is common with debconf
>
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> >What is the size of all this? Ok. we have now in sid/main/i386 (see
> >[2]) 7000 Packages and the descriptions of all this packages is
> >2660993 bytes big. We get a description size per package of 384 bytes.
> >With gzip we w
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:51:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Gettext normally uses the entire untranslated string as the key in the .mo
> > > file. This has many advantages when dealing with translation of strings
> > > in
> > > programs, where the untranslated string is actually present
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:40:47AM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:55:32PM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> >
> > > > 2.) get the .po/.mo files on the system
> > > [snip]
> > > >If we don't like this
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:55:32PM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
>
> > > 2.) get the .po/.mo files on the system
> > [snip]
> > >If we don't like this process on the client all the time, we can
> > >produce Descriptions-XX.p
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:24:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I don't know enough about gettext - am I assuming correctly that in
> > > the .mo file, the English translation is replaced with a checksum or
> > > similar, so you do not need to stor
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:24:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I don't know enough about gettext - am I assuming correctly that in
> > the .mo file, the English translation is replaced with a checksum or
> > similar, so you do not need to store the complete English translation?
>
> Gettext no
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:24:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think it's very important to have the translations in the *source*
> > package.
>
> Also agreed.
Why? Each system will usually only require one language per package.
The rest, as far as any particular system is concerned, is j
yOn Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Richard Atterer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 01:22:16PM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > > 1.) use all the time _gettext_!
>
> > I agree, otherwise we'd just have to keep re-inventing the wheel.
>
> > > 2.)
Hello Richard,
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Richard Atterer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 01:22:16PM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > 1.) use all the time _gettext_!
> I agree, otherwise we'd just have to keep re-inventing the wheel.
> > 2.) get the .po/.mo files on the system
> [snip]
> >If we d
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> > 2.) get the .po/.mo files on the system
> [snip]
> >If we don't like this process on the client all the time, we can
> >produce Descriptions-XX.po files and the clinet must only
> >download this file and save this in
Hi Michael,
all in all, I think this sounds nice!
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 01:22:16PM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> 1.) use all the time _gettext_!
I agree, otherwise we'd just have to keep re-inventing the wheel.
> 2.) get the .po/.mo files on the system
[snip]
>If we don't like this proce
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Martin Quinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:52:40PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
> >
> > > After I read some more mails and write some comments myself, IMHO it
> > > is time to write a newer hopefully better proposal. Not all
#include
Nick Phillips wrote on Tue Sep 04, 2001 um 03:30:08PM:
> So you probably don't usually want the translations to be part of the
> package sources or binaries. They're logically separate, and should usually
> be physically separate (as physically as we ever get in this sense).
...
> So, apt
Sorry to screw up the threading; thought I'd posted this already, then
deleted grisu's message before finding that I hadn't sent this :(
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 01:22:16PM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> Not all parts are turned into stone. I need some comments and decision
> on some parts. Maybe
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:52:40PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
>
> > After I read some more mails and write some comments myself, IMHO it
> > is time to write a newer hopefully better proposal. Not all is new.
> > But I add some new thoughs and some part
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
> After I read some more mails and write some comments myself, IMHO it
> is time to write a newer hopefully better proposal. Not all is new.
> But I add some new thoughs and some parts from some comments.
We can reduce the download size by 50% by letting
Hello all
After I read some more mails and write some comments myself, IMHO it
is time to write a newer hopefully better proposal. Not all is new.
But I add some new thoughs and some parts from some comments.
In this proposal I have combined the decentralized translations, and
also the central r
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 12:43:09PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 08:31:40AM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 11:19:42PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> > > Furthermore, as mentioned before, translation packages have the
> > > disadvantage that new D
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 08:31:40AM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 11:19:42PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> > Furthermore, as mentioned before, translation packages have the
> > disadvantage that new Descriptions, i.e. _the_ones_you_are_most_likely
> > _to_look_at_, will *n
Le Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 11:19:42PM +0200, Richard Atterer écrivait:
> > And that's a mirror where we I only have i386. So multiply by 10 arch,
> > then by 50 languages, and you get 10Gb of Packages file. We could reduce
> > that if we remove uncompressed Packages but still ...
> >
> > And a good p
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 02:28:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 10:11:45AM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> > > Of 8 friends of mine that are using debian, I know that:
> > > 2 would want fallback hungarian-
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 10:11:45AM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> > Of 8 friends of mine that are using debian, I know that:
> > 2 would want fallback hungarian->slovak->czech
> > 1 would want fallback lithuanian->slovak->czech->rus
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 10:11:45AM +0200, Radovan Garabik wrote:
> Just a small nitpicks...
>
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:17:01AM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> > Hi Raphael,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 01:59:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> >
> > With language-specific Packages fil
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:17:01AM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> Hi Raphael,
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 01:59:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
[snip]
> > using my "fr" environnment I could'n reconfigure debconf to use the
> > Gnome frontend, it wasn't listed in the proposed choices because t
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 11:19:42PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 03:38:58PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Le Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:17:01AM +0200, Richard Atterer écrivait:
> > > With language-specific Packages files, there is no size issue.
> > And that's a mirror wh
33 matches
Mail list logo
