În data de Ma, 29-09-2009 la 08:39 +0200, David Planella a scris: > El dl 28 de 09 de 2009 a les 19:03 +0300, en/na Adi Roiban va escriure: > > Hi, > > [snip] > > Also since the domain for each template is very generic (ex evolution, > > fspot) , I have prepended "ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu-" to the name of > > each template. > > Otherwise we would have 2 templates named "evolution" (one for the real > > evolution and the other one for ubiquity) and I can create confusions. > > > > Yes, good idea. The ubiquity upstream project has also translations > enabled, and I guess the template names should also be changed there to > mirror the distro templates. I don't have access at the upstream project. Maybe Evan can do this.
Anyway I have only changed the template name... the domain is the same. > > All templates are included in the language packs. Is there a reason to > > include them the language packs? > > > > I can't see any reason, I believe the language pack checkboxes can be > unticked. OK. Since I didn't know to much about how the slideshow is used, I just wanted to be sure of the consequence of unticking that checkbox. Done :) > > Do you think it is best to have a single template for all > > ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu templates or it is best to leave them in > > separate files? In my view it is much simpler to have them in a single > > POT file. > > > > I do agree, but I'm guessing that this has been done like this due to > the build system of ubiquity? Evan, could you tell us more about this? This is not a big issues, but I think it's a good idea to try to reduce the number of templates in the Ubuntu list. Thanks Evan for your work in the slideshow. If you need help in managing po files (msgmerge and stuff) please let me know and I will try to help you. Also feel free to contact me regarding the RTL problem. Cheers! -- Adi Roiban -- ubuntu-translators mailing list ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
