Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > > Since the proposal to add translated messages to the bootscripts failed, > wc should work fine (all strings it operated upon are ASCII-only) and the sed > s/././g command is not needed. > > Or should we keep that just in case so that the proposal can be easily > reconsidered? That would depend on people willing to provide translations > and on bootscript coders to make their bootscripts translation-friendly. >
I'm unsure what to do with it. Even though I clobbed that wrapping block together, I think it's an eyesore to say the least. But unwritten BLFS policy is to try not to alter the base LFS scripts (taken from a post roughly I guess about November 2001? so I've no idea if we still need to follow that 'policy', but it is a good rule). I mention that only because if it's ripped out and needs to be altered again later in BLFS, hints, or otherwise... OT: I'd like to see the translated boot messages show again, but I'm not much help in that area speaking only (native) broken English myself. ;-) It's a little fuzzy, but I think the problem with the multi part messages could be fixed, it would require a very little bit of duplicate text in one script IIRC. Also, what is to keep the native text from simply being a patch that ships with the tarballs? That way we support who is interested and the only real support issue is when new scripts are written, or the actual printed text changes. That should solve everything but the CJK (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) issue I believe. I wonder exactly how large those patches would be. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
