[Pkg-roundcube-maintainers] Packaging an extra locale in Roundcube

[Louis-Philippe Véronneau]

Sorry, it took me while to understand how to reply to mails from the
mailman2 archive.

I'm not subscribed to this list, please keep me in CC :)

> On 11/13/19 3:36 PM, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
>> I haven't tried to have it merged upstream since I doubt it would be
>> accepted (gender neutral translations issues tend to be quite
>> acrimonious, especially in the French translation community...)
>
> I think you should try. Users have to opt-in to using fr_FEM over
> regular fr, right? So it doesn't hurt anyone who hasn't chosen to use
> it?

Some people have very strong opinions on language, but I agree with you
so I'll try and see if I can get it merged upstream.

> Are there other packages with French gender neutral translations? I
> did a Google search for fr_FEM and all I really found was your
> Roundcube translation. If so, are they using the fr_FEM locale too?

I don't think that's a thing, no.

> If fr_FEM is not standardized... Where is FEM coming from? Is that
> related to "feminine" or something else in French? I wonder if fr_FRN
> would be better, as that would allow nicely for fr_CAN if there is a
> similar effort in the future for Canadian French (fr_CA).

The 'FEM' comes from the French word for "Gender Neutral" (féminisée). I
guess if it was more common to have gender neutral translations, having
something like xx_GN wouldn't be a bad idea, but I haven't seen that
kind of stuff elsewhere.

I don't think adding an "N" at the end of an existing locale would
really make tons of sense, since there are very little difference
between French locales when doing technical translations (I speak
"fr_CA" myself).

>> I would like to package it in Debian for ease of use.
>>
>> I don't know how complicated packaging Roundcube is, but I doubt you
>> want to deal with repacking upstream's tarball to add an extra
>> locale.
>
> If the Debian roundcube package maintainers (who I am not one of) wish
> to ship this, there's no need to re-pack the tarball. It could be
> shipped as a Debian patch (or alternatively as a second orig tarball,
> but that'd be less common and it probably still needs a patch to hook
> the new language code into the build system).

I'll try to upstream this and will report here if I fail :)

Cheers,

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo at debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-roundcube-maintainers/attachments/20191122/e238942c/attachment.sig>