[Aptitude-devel] Bug#537858: aptitude: comments on i18n

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2014-02-09 helix84 <helix84 at centrum.sk>:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Daniel Hartwig <mandyke at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8 February 2014 23:29, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
>>>
>>> - About "no-summary", "first-package" and so on, both the original
>>> messages in english and the translated ones are accepted by the
>>> program, so yes, they should be translated
>>>
>>> Maybe it would be better to not allow translation of keywords at all,
>>> it's not allowed in other places --e.g., the why command itself--, so
>>> the way in which is done is inconsistent and generates more work for
>>> both devels and translators without much benefit for the user, I
>>> think.  Suggestions/comments about this?
>>>
>>
>> I agree.  These keywords are part of the programs configuration and
>> should not be accepted in localized form.  Those which currently
>> accept localized forms should be deprecated with a suitable warning.

I opened a new bug report for that (#738345), explaining it more
clearly, since there are many such occurences in the code.


>>> - Then, in the error message, since both the english and the
>>> translated are accepted, I think that the translators should put both,
>>> but I don't know what's the common practice.
>>
>> Makes sense.
>
> I also agree. But the translator comments should make it clear that
> these should either not be translated or listed both in the original
> and translated form (for use and for explanation, respectively). The
> decision may be left up to individual language teams.

I also fixed this, at least in the one that you mentioned:

+      // ForTranslators: "why" here is the aptitude command name and should not
+      // be translated.  Both the translated and the untranslated log level
+      // names are accepted here.


>>> - I didn't change the ForTranslators thing yet.  Is TRANSLATORS used
>>> (virtually) everywhere?
>>
>> I believe so.
>
> I don't have statistical evidence, but my anecdotal evidence from a
> few dozens of projects says that if these comments are present then
> this is the most common form.

I changed them now, too.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>