[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: desc and summary



> 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,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]