Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: rpm needs two i18n domains, one for executables, the other for libraries (#505)
Closed #505. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/505#event-1800047331___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: rpm needs two i18n domains, one for executables, the other for libraries (#505)
Um, 1. is what already happens, quoting system.h: ``` # define _(Text) dgettext (PACKAGE, Text) ``` Is there an actual issue you're experiencing somewhere? I don't much care for hypothetical tickets. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/505#issuecomment-414267591___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: rpm needs two i18n domains, one for executables, the other for libraries (#505)
Without some goal, I cannot do a patch. Possible goals are: 1) minimal effort: use the existing domain but change to use dgettext() with explicit domain everywhere. 2) minimal size for library domain: use a different marker for the library domain, tuned to code paths used by, say, rpm-python. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/505#issuecomment-413180059___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: rpm needs two i18n domains, one for executables, the other for libraries (#505)
Got a patch? BTW if you find GH's pull requests cumbersome, good old patches-by-email to rpm-maint list are perfectly welcome. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/505#issuecomment-413166470___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: rpm needs two i18n domains, one for executables, the other for libraries (#505)
The recommended solution in gettext documentation is separate domains for executables and libraries. This avoids bloat if/when libraries are packaged separately from executables. The efforts of translation teams are perhaps simplified by having two smaller domains: the mostly error messages in rpm i18n are largely from executables, not the library. There are also many rpm executable only code paths through the library that could also be handled in the executable rather than the library domain. At a minimum, one needs to use dgettext, not gettext, to specifically include the domain in which to look up the string. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/505#issuecomment-412369941___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: rpm needs two i18n domains, one for executables, the other for libraries (#505)
What's the problem with having one domain? Apart from mo files containing more than just lib translations. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/505#issuecomment-412346287___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: rpm needs two i18n domains, one for executables, the other for libraries (#505)
Increasingly, rpm libraries are used by bindings, or linked by other applications. In order for I18n to be useful, there appears to be a need to use a 2nd PO file exclusively for library strings, and to consistently use dgettext, not gettext, to do substitution with an explicit translation domain when compiling libraries. Yes very not fun. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/505___ Rpm-maint mailing list Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
