Galen Charlton wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On the way to create the package, I find several things that I would like >> to see upstream (instead of a diff for the Debian package). This is: > ... >> So, can you review these changesets and apply them (or something similar) >> or tell me what is wrong with them ? > > I will apply most of these to the Koha 3.1/3.2 HEAD tomorrow.
I looked at the translation system. I've a few suggestion of patch for upstream. I put all the changeset that can interest upstream in my debian git tree that has the following branches: upstream: your release wip-for-upstream: upstream + changesets that can be applied upstream (IMHO) wip: wip-for-upstream + changesets leading to a debian package About translation, I've: * Use relative path to avoid people dependent paths Some scripts were using private absolute path. I do not think this is needed * Force ordering of files when creating/updating po files Files were listed in raw (inode) order. So the list was not the same between all machines. This generated different .po files even if nothing changed :-( => now, only POT-Changed-Date is modified when running ./update.pl several times. Note that this is a gettext bug that will be fixed in the next release (see http://bugs.debian.org/496282 and https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?24123 for more information) * Remove temporary files when updating po files update.pl was creating lots of files in /tmp. Their removal were commented out. When running ./update.pl and then ./install.pl, I see that the release was not up-to-date wrt translation. Was it intentional or was it a bug ? I plan to rebuild the translated file (by invoking ./update.pl and ./install.pl) in the debian package in order to be able to quickly fix translation errors reported by user (and not to have to wait for a new upstream release of koha with these translation bugs fixed). This is why I would like to know if running ./update.pl and then ./install.pl is the correct thing to do. Or, perhaps, some languages must be manually excluded ? I also run in the po directory the following commands: for f in *.po ; do echo -n "$f: "; msgfmt --statistics -o /dev/null $f ; done => lots of po files are not really up-to-date for f in *.po ; do echo; echo "=> $f: "; msgfmt --statistics -o /dev/null -cv $f ; done => and there are errors in a lot of them What do you think: is it better that the debian package offers as many translations as possible (even if they are incomplete). Or should I create l10n packages only for language with enought translation ? (which limit then ?) Best regards, Vincent _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
