> > I like your idea.
> > I don't understand why dpkg isn't fully i18n? Some time ago I've sent a
> > patch which made i18n for field names. I.e.
> > $ LANG=pl_PL dpkg -s dpkg
>
> GAH! That's fully evil.
>
> Every wonder why things like HTTP and FTP don't have internationalized
> versions? :P
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:03:32PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
>
> > I like your idea.
> > I don't understand why dpkg isn't fully i18n? Some time ago I've sent a
> > patch which made i18n for field names. I.e.
> > $ LANG=pl_PL dpkg -s dpkg
>
>
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> I like your idea.
> I don't understand why dpkg isn't fully i18n? Some time ago I've sent a
> patch which made i18n for field names. I.e.
> $ LANG=pl_PL dpkg -s dpkg
GAH! That's fully evil.
Every wonder why things like HTTP and FTP don't have inte
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> I think one of the most important part of Debian system that is not i18ned
> is the packages descriptions. It is essential for the user to be able to
> choose the packages he/she needs.
I like your idea.
I don't understand why dpkg isn't fully i18n? So
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 10:06:15AM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
>
> Their suggestion (they all rpm-users in some way) was to based package
> localization om gettext. Im not sure I see the actual bennefits of it
> when we're talking translating files and not just lines of output from
> an ordinary p
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggest the following ($lang means two-letter language code):
I have discussed this with our l10n freaks in the local lug (don't
quote that). Some months ago I actually prommised to bring this
subject up in debian but I never got the time (a partiall
6 matches
Mail list logo
