desc and summary

[Xavier Conde Rueda]

Thanks,

however, I think translation teams could follow this approach as "de
facto", instead of translating alphabetically. With so much strings to
work on, we should priorize on KDE's and GNOME's. So there is no need
to "repackage" a "gnome-specspo.pot" and a "kde-specspo.pot" - just
follow this approach and translate first those strings.

Regards,

--Xavi

2005/5/17, Bernd Groh <bgroh at redhat.com>:
> There is a lot of logic in that, and I did consider it, but I decided
> against it, because it becomes a little too difficult to manage wrt how
> things are currently. Regarding the split of summaries and descriptions,
> at one stage, we even considered removing all descriptions completely,
> and to keep summaries only. That's why I decided to make the
> descriptions a second pot. If we'd attempt any further division,
> bringing specspo to live again, would take a whole lot longer again. For
> now, I'd really prefer to keep it as it is, summary.pot and desc.pot,
> and maybe later down the track, look into splitting specspo according to
> package groups.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bernd
> 
> 
> Xavier Conde Rueda wrote:
> 
> >First of all, hello everyone! My name is Xavier and I'm working on the
> >Catalan team with Josep. We've felt somewhat _lazy_ when translating
> >specspo, it has been a common issue in our team.
> >
> >Maybe it would be better to separate GNOME and KDE's summaries and
> >descriptions, GNU and X's, and the rest of them to be considered as
> >EXTRAS. I'll priorize the two firsts.
> >
> >2005/5/17, Göran Uddeborg <goeran at uddeborg.se>:
> >
> >
> >>Bernd Groh writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>We thought we'd split summaries and descriptions, to make the files a
> >>>little smaller, and allow to prioritize between the two.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>There are points in that.  And I want to encourage any attempts to
> >>bring these translations alive again.
> >>
> >>But separating description and summary has one disadvantage:
> >>consistency.  When I do the translation, I try to keep these two
> >>messages fit together.  In the current dist file it's very easy; they
> >>typically come immediately after each other.
> >>
> >>The dist package IS very large, I'm very well aware of that.  But
> >>maybe splitting it in this way is not ideal.  I don't know what the
> >>infrastructure you are building would allow.  But if possible, it
> >>might be better to divide by group, or maybe just alphabetically by
> >>package name.
> >>
> >>Do you other specspo/dist/summary/description translators agree with
> >>me?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> >>Fedora-trans-list at redhat.com
> >>http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> >Fedora-trans-list at redhat.com
> >http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> Fedora-trans-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list
>