On 2009-12-02 19:00 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> 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?
It would probably work for German, but could aggravate the problem in
other languages. If this term is used in different grammatical cases
and the declination of the language's word for "database" differs
between these cases, the translator gets into a desperate situation. :-(
Regards,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
