On 9/26/06, Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I liked this idea a lot but I have some questions:
You raise some very nice points.
- how can I do to avoid upgrade tdebs when there's no translation changes?
I have not thought of that problem before. There are three ways to solve this: 1. Introduce translation versions in the Translations file, status file field and file names of the translation packs. Then a Translations file is really needed. 2. Do some wierd magic with linking the file with the translations for the old version into the place where the new translation should be and then comparing some metadata remotely - flacky. 3. Do not solve it at all. It would still beat the current situation - currently, if there is a new package version, I need to redownload the transation inside the package anyway, even if the translation did not change, even download translations I do not care about. - simplest way
- when upgrading from etch to etch+1 (let's think it'll be done there) dpkg, apt and aptitude would be need to be upgraded _before_ anything else. Will be some stages where no translation will be found. Will be it be a problem for dpkg?
If we implement this for etch+1 and a user upgrades by first installing new dpkg and apt, then he would have no translations for dpkg and apt at that point. If he just does a dist-upgrade, he would have no translations at all until he configures the languages he needs and runs the new apt. That would have to go into the release notes then.
- Do a libc change be need?
Not required if we allow tdebs to overwrite files of the base packages. -- Best regards, Aigars Mahinovs mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] #--------------------------------------------------------------# | .''`. Debian GNU/Linux LAKA | | : :' : http://www.debian.org & http://www.laka.lv | | `. `' | | `- | #--------------------------------------------------------------# -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
