desc and summary

[Marek Zukal]

nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net napsal(a):
>> De : "Jeremy Katz" <katzj at 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 at jabbim.cz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-trans-list/attachments/20070912/25a31f53/attachment.sig>