On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:16:37PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 18:36 +0700, Arief S Fitrianto wrote: > > > On Sel, 8 Maret 2005, 5:49, Denis Barbier berkata: > > > On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 08:04:07PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > * Strings for all programs are concatenated in the same PO file. > > > Translators usually prefer translating most used programs (like > > > dpkg) first. You certainly already addressed this issue in your > > > development > > > branch. > > I agreed. > > I suggest that the strings are organized as the binary package does from the > > same source, i.e., the PO file exist for dpkg,dselect,etc. > > > Don't suppose anyone knows how to achieve this with gettext? Last time > I looked you listed source files in po/POTFILES.in and it turned those > into a single .pot. > > Would it mean having multiple po/ directories?
My initial remark with respect to this huge PO file was mainly to have dselect msgids in a separate file; dselect is nowadays not a primary target for translators because users are encouraged to try other frontends. For instance, it would be really nice if http://people.debian.org/~seppy/d-i/level4/ could display statistics for programs which should be focused on by translators, and not for all programs shipped in the same source package. The suggestion by Arief S Fitrianto makes a lot of sense. I had in mind the gettext package, but did not realize that having a po directory per binary package may be a great idea for other packages[1]. Upstream divided it into gettext-runtime and gettext-tools, the latter being only used when working with PO files. IIRC the Debian maintainer did implement this split before upstream, which is why the gettext-base and gettext packages have slightly different names. But upstream also splitted PO files, and there are now two po directories so that each Debian package has its own catalogs. This is very convenient because translators can first focus on gettext-runtime which is much more important. You will answer that dpkg and dselect share some source code under the lib directory, and thus PO files cannot be splitted. Translators can use a PO file as a compendium for the other, so duplicates are not very harmful. But maybe there is a simpler way. I did not deeply dig into this directory, but it seems to me that almost all messages are either internal errors (displayed via ohshit*) or debugging messages (as in checksubprocerr). These messages are very hard to translate and do not provide any benefit to end users; I prefer them to be not translatable, but I know that there are other opinions. If you have no strong objections, I can have a closer look and see if all messages from the lib directory can be dropped. Christian made also an interesting point; messages are extracted from files in the same order as they are listed in po/POTFILES.in. If you list src/*.c first (maybe with a specific order), most visible strings should then appear near the top of the file. Denis [1] Such a split only makes sense if a binary package is of higher priority than others. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
