Dne 15.7.2015 v 12:21 Mathieu Bridon napsal(a): > On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 10:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> > On 07/15/2015 10:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> > >>> > > Description and Summary can be localized in .spec file [1], where >>> > > supposedly "names" in comps terminology refers to "summary" in >>> > > .spec >>> > > terminology. Including translations is encouraged in guidelines as >>> > > well >>> > > [2, 3], unfortunately without any further details :/ >> > >> > I don't think localized summaries and descriptions are applicable in >> > distributions like Fedora, where packages are maintained by >> > individuals. >> > >> > IMO, making localized summaries/descrs. helpful would require a >> > multilingal team of translators/packagers, whose sole task it would >> > have >> > to be to add translations for a predefined set of languages to >> > maintain >> > them. >> > >> > That said, I don't consider random packagers adding random >> > translations >> > to packages to be useful and to cause more problems than they solve. > One problem with localized summaries/descriptions in packages, is that > you need a new build (and a new update in Bodhi, unless you wait 6 > months for the next release) for it to reach users. > > That's a lot of churn, and it's a terrible UX for users to keep > receiving "updates" that only add a translation of the > summary/description of the package (not the app itself!) in a language > they might not even care of. > > Comps is much better on this point: we edit comps, and at the next > compose the change is taken into account. > > Much less churn, especially for the users. >
But how is better to have translated just comps, when nothing else is translated? And speaking of UI, comps translation are visible just in Anaconda. Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
