On 7/27/05, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Eddy Petrisor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Hello, > > > > As I have said in at a previous time, I have started working on adding > > comments in the dpkg code, in order to add automatic comments to the > > translatable strings. > > WONDERFUL. > > If you can do it on your own TLA branch, that'd be great. See Scott's > wonderful explanations about arch/tla/baz at http://www.dpkg.org
Downloaded the info, as I am offline @home; if there is a way to make my repo (after I set it up) available online, I will; If not I will work with patches. I didn't realized that tla takes inodes into consideration when diff-ing and during other operations that should be local (I made the checkout on a connected machine then copied all the data on my laptop; when I tried a diff, I saw this behaviour) - apparently tla does not have this feature, like, iirc, monotone does. > > 2) in some languages forms like "3 installed packages", "1 installed > > package" > > and "6 installed packages" need three different forms for the word > > ngettext is what you need as others explained. So I will need to change the dpkg code; that answers my question. > > 3) in some cases the messages are so cryptical that rephrasing them would > > be a > > much better solution than adding automatic comments: > Rephrase... I guess that for the ones that are not cryptical commenting is a better option, isn't it? > > Solutions: > > a) change the messages > > consequnce: > > - translations will be fuzzied; many translators will cuss at me > > + messages will be easier to translate > > + no more changes will be necessary later > > + messages will be easy to understand for regular Joes (although they > > will > > probably won't be able to do anything with the resulted info > > > Do this. We are at a moiment in the devel cycle where breaking > translaiton is not *that* a problem. After all, working with broken > strings is our daily life..:-) Ok, that's what I was inclined to do, too. > More seriously, even if I sometimes have to slow down upstream by > requesting not changing strings too often, when a string is broken, it > has to be fixed, whether or not it breaks the translations. good point > > 4) the best packaging practices states that the program should not "speak > > as a person"; impersonal messages are preffered. > > > > this is what I have found, at a glance: > > "...like what you want, and you can `reject' my suggestions by using the > > capital..." - there shouldn't be "my sugestions" > > => > > "and you can `reject' the suggestions by using the capital" > > > Yes, also. Throw out these "amateur-style" messages. There is NO > REASON to use first person in a computer program. Thanks for the "strong" argument :) . Seriousely, there are these two oppinions between translators (not only Romanians) and I favor the impersonal speaking, although it leads, usually, to longer phrases. -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
