nicolas mailhot laposte net napsal(a): >> De : "Jeremy Katz" <katzj redhat com> > >> Actually, nothing says that additional repos can't have their own >> specspo-type package as well. > > This is considerably upping the bar to creation of a new repository, and making impossible the common "collect rpms, launch createrepo" workflow > >> Also, moving the translations into the spec files is pretty painful >> also. It makes the spec file _much_ more complicated to actually edit > > Note I'm not advocating pushing the translations in the spec file, but somewhere within the package (could be a SourceX-like declaration referencing a detached translation file) > >> and work with and it also means the package has to be rebuilt to get >> translations of package metadata added. > > Packages need to be rebuilt anyway when the localisation teams translate the app (and translators complain we don't do it) > > Also how often are Description and Summary changed? Pretty never in my experience. That would mean a new Fedora package would be rebuilt a few times for translations just after hitting the repository and then never again. (and this can be hidden to users by pushing new packages to rawhide-only the time translators work on them) > >> All of the above said, specspo probably _isn't_ the >> right answer... > > Yes, it was hyped as necessary to make translator work easy, and now you have translators complaining of it. > > Regards, > I think that the main problem is that those files are really to big. 8k+ strings is really great load. It would be better if the specspo files were divided correspondingly to categories of the packages or maybe alphabetically into a few smaller files. About the description in the package itself. Just an idea. I would not try to get the translation into package but try to look for it in the package and if it is there update corresponding string at the .po file. -- Marek Zukal Jabber: zippy jabbim cz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature