On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 11:10:51PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 22 March 2008, Robert Millan wrote: > > > I thought that the location was chosen so that translating it could be > > > integrated, and I thought that was already the case. Yesterday I > > > learned that this is not so. > > > > I expected that translation would be integrated eventually. Christian > > mentioned there are technical problems with that. I'm willing to help on > > those if I can, but we haven't got around to discussing it yet (it wasn't > > a big priority for me either). > > As win32-loader does not follow the usual structure of D-I components there > will always be exceptions. I see no reason to force our translation > infrastructure into supporting that when translations can easily be handled > outside D-I, just as is already done for some other packages that are > related to D-I, but not part of it in a strict sense (such as aptitude or > tasksel).
Ok, no big deal. > > > I also personally feel that translation of win32-loader should not be > > > integrated in the level 1 infrastructure _because_ it isn't a D-I > > > component. > > > > You mean that because win32-loader doesn't produce udebs, it can't be > > considered a D-I component, and therefore its translations can't be > > integrated? > > No, Then why do you keep talking about udebs? > you are twisting my argument. You overestimate me. I can barely understand your argument, let alone twist it. Anyway, no big deal for me as I said. -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
