Hi! On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:53:57 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2009-11-22 20:53 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;h=b909dc4 > > Thanks for improving the messages, but I wonder whether it is such a > good idea to mark the names of the databases as translatable; that could > likely lead to confusion, because an unsuspecting translator might take > 'available' for an adjective.
Oh, hmm, I had reservations about marking those two, but I opted to because they are more like a description of the kind of database than the literal name. > I could leave the names as they are, but the 'status' string is also > used in an entirely different context in update-alternatives, and there > it _has to_ be translated. But, yes this is an issue. Something that I considered at the time and which would probably fix both issues is to use "status database" and "available database", it might make the string using that a bit more crypting, but it might be an overal improvement, would that work for you? thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
